alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
123 STAT. 3484 PUBLIC LAW 111–124—DEC. 28, 2009 

Public Law 111–124 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To extend the Generalized System of Preferences and the Andean Trade Preference 

Act, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES. 

Section 505 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2465) is 

amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘December 

31, 2010’’. 

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE ACT. 

(a) EXTENSION.—Section 208(a) of the Andean Trade Preference 

Act (19 U.S.C. 3206(a)) is amended in paragraphs (1) and (2) by 

striking ‘‘December 31, 2009’’ each place it appears and inserting 

‘‘December 31, 2010’’. 

(b) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN APPAREL ARTICLES.—Section 

204(b)(3) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3203(b)(3)) 

is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (B)— 

(A) in clause (iii)— 

(i) in subclause (II), by striking ‘‘7 succeeding 1- 

year periods’’ and inserting ‘‘8 succeeding 1-year 

periods’’; and 

(ii) in subclause (III)(bb), by striking ‘‘and for the 

succeeding 2-year period’’ and inserting ‘‘and for the 

succeeding 3-year period’’; and 

(B) in clause (v)(II), by striking ‘‘6 succeeding 1-year 

periods’’ and inserting ‘‘7 succeeding 1-year periods’’; and 

(2) in subparagraph (E)(ii)(II), by striking ‘‘December 31, 

2009’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2010’’. 

(c) REPORT.—Section 203(f)(1) of the Andean Trade Preference 

Act (19 U.S.C. 3202(f)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘April 30, 2003’’ 

and inserting ‘‘June 30, 2010’’. 

SEC. 3. CUSTOMS USER FEES. 

Section 13031(j)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)) is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘February 14, 2018’’ 

and inserting ‘‘May 14, 2018’’; and 

(2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ‘‘February 7, 2018’’ 

and inserting ‘‘June 7, 2018’’. 

Dec. 28, 2009 

[H.R. 4284] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with PUBLIC LAWS
PUBLIC LAW 111–124—DEC. 28, 2009 123 STAT. 3485 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4284: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009): 

Dec. 14, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 22, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

SEC. 4. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES. 

The percentage under paragraph (1) of section 202(b) of the 

Corporate Estimated Tax Shift Act of 2009 in effect on the date 

of the enactment of this Act is increased by 1.5 percentage points. 

Approved December 28, 2009. 

26 USC 6655 

note. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with PUBLIC LAWS
<Page>

                                                                  Exhibit 10.34


                  FIRST AMENDMENT made as of September 11, 2001 to the
Employment Agreement dated as of March 31, 2000 by and between U.S. Industries,
Inc., a Delaware Corporation, with its principal office at 101 Wood Avenue
South, Iselin, New Jersey 08830 (the "Company") and Steven C. Barre
("Executive").

                                   WITNESSETH:

                  WHEREAS, the Company and Executive have previously entered
into the Employment Agreement and the Executive is currently employed as Vice
President, General Counsel and Secretary of the Company; and

                  WHEREAS, the Company desires to employ Executive as Senior
Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary and to make certain other
amendments to the Employment Agreement effective September 11, 2001 (the
"Effective Date").

                  NOW, THEREFORE, effective on the Effective Date, the parties
hereto agree as follows:

                  1. Section 2 of the Employment Agreement is amended by the
deletion of the first sentence of Section 2(a) in its entirety and the
substitution of the following in lieu thereof:

                  "Executive shall serve as Senior Vice President, General
                  Counsel and Secretary of the Company."
<Page>

                  2. Section 3 of the Employment Agreement is amended by the
deletion of the first sentence in its entirety and the substitution of the
following in lieu thereof:

                  "During the Employment Term, the Company shall pay Executive a
                  base salary at the annual rate of not less than $285,000."

                  3. Section 4(a) of the Employment Agreement is amended by the
deletion of the words "60% of Base Salary" and the substitution of the words
"70% of Base Salary" in lieu thereof.

                  4. Exhibit A, Section (d)(i) of the Employment Agreement is
amended by the deletion of the words "Vice President" and the substitution of
the words "Senior Vice President" in lieu thereof.

                  5. THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT. The Employment Agreement, as
amended herein, shall remain in full force and effect.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to
be executed by its duly authorized officer and the Executive has hereunto set
his hand as of the date first above written.

                                  U.S. INDUSTRIES, INC.


                                  By:
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Dorothy E. Sander
                                     Senior Vice President-Administration


                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Steven C. Barre ("Executive")
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# In Their Own Words Mary Martinez, DLA Distribution San Joaquin, DLA 60th Anniversary Interview

By DLA Public Affairs

                NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa.  –              
16:38VIDEO  | 16:38 |In Their Own Words Mary Martinez, DLA Distribution San Joaquin, DLA 60th Anniversary Interview

Mary Martinez, DLA Distribution San Joaquin, talks about her history with the agency for DLA's 60th Anniversary.

For more information about DLA's history visit: https://www.dla.mil/About-DLA/History/60th-Anniversary/ 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA 60th AnniversaryDLA 60th Anniversary DistributionDistribution
# C_2013063EN.01002602.xml

| 2.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/26

---

Action brought on 26 December 2012 — ZZ v ECDC

(Case F-159/12)

2013/C 63/52

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant and the order to re-instate him in the service and pay him the difference between all the emoluments he would have received from the date of effect of the contested decision and the monetary compensation he has received.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision of ECDC of 24.2.2012 to dismiss the applicant, so that, in order to comply with such judgment, ECDC shall be required under Article 266 TFEU to re-instate him in the service and pay him all emoluments he would have received from the date of effect of the contested decision together with default interest at the rate laid down by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations applicable during the period concerned, increased by two percentage points, minus the monetary compensation he has received and the unemployment allowance he will until his re-instatement have received; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision of ECDC of 24.2.2012 to dismiss the applicant, so that, in order to comply with such judgment, ECDC shall be required under Article 266 TFEU to re-instate him in the service and pay him all emoluments he would have received from the date of effect of the contested decision together with default interest at the rate laid down by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations applicable during the period concerned, increased by two percentage points, minus the monetary compensation he has received and the unemployment allowance he will until his re-instatement have received;

| — | annul the letter of 18.9.2012 from the Head of ECDC’s OCS Unit rejecting the applicant’s administrative complaint against the contested decision, insofar as said letter may produce autonomous legal effects; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the letter of 18.9.2012 from the Head of ECDC’s OCS Unit rejecting the applicant’s administrative complaint against the contested decision, insofar as said letter may produce autonomous legal effects;

| — | order ECDC to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order ECDC to pay all the costs.

---
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-4303

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Arkansas. * Nina Lee Smart, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 7, 2000 Filed: June 15, 2000

___________ Before LOKEN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Nina Lee Smart appeals her drug conspiracy sentence asserting as error the district court's refusal to depart downward, which she had urged the court to do on the basis her incarceration would traumatize her young son. We will not review this argument, however, because the court acknowledged its authority to depart but declinedto do so as a discretionary matter. See United States v. Correa , 167 F.3d 414, 417 (8th Cir. 1999); United States v. Field , 110 F.3d 587, 591 (8th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we affirm.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2208 

To amend the Export Apple Act to permit the export of apples to Canada 

in bulk bins without certification by the Department of Agriculture. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 20, 2012 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Export Apple Act to permit the export of 

apples to Canada in bulk bins without certification by 

the Department of Agriculture. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BULK SHIPMENT OF APPLES TO CANADA. 

4 (a) BULK SHIPMENT OF APPLES TO CANADA.—The 

5 Export Apple Act is amended by inserting after section 

6 4 (7 U.S.C. 584) the following: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 4A. BULK SHIPMENT OF APPLES TO CANADA. 

8 ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, ap9 ples may be shipped to Canada in bulk bins without com10 plying with this Act.’’. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2208 IS

1 (b) DEFINITION OF BULK BIN.—Section 9 of the Ex2 port Apple Act (7 U.S.C. 589) is amended— 

3 (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 9. That when used in this 

4 Act—’’ and inserting the following: 

5 ‘‘SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS. 

6 ‘‘In this Act:’’; 

7 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), 

8 and (4) as paragraphs (4), (5), (3), and (1), respec9 tively; and 

10 (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) (as so re11 designated) the following: 

12 ‘‘(5) BULK BIN.—The term ‘bulk bin’ means a 

13 bin that contains a quantity of apples weighing more 

14 than 100 pounds.’’. 

15 (c) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 60 days after the 

16 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture 

17 shall issue regulations to carry out the amendments made 

18 by this Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
October 8, 1945

No. 6223.

#### *United States*v. *Nicholas Gal (Globe Shipping Co., Inc.).*

Entered at New York, N. Y. Reap. Dec. 6192 *[United States*v. *Nicholas Gal et al.,*Re-appraisement 129805-A, etc.] Motion by appellant.
# C_2013171EN.01001402.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 19 March 2013 — Naime Dogan v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-138/13)

2013/C 171/28

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Naime Dogan

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 November 1970 to the Agreement of 12 September 1963 establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey for the transitional stage of the Association (Additional Protocol) preclude a provision of national law which was introduced for the first time after the abovementioned provisions had come into force and which makes the first entry of a member of the family of a Turkish national who enjoys the legal status under Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol conditional on the requirement that, prior to entry, the family member can demonstrate the ability to communicate, in a basic way, in the German language? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 November 1970 to the Agreement of 12 September 1963 establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey for the transitional stage of the Association (Additional Protocol) preclude a provision of national law which was introduced for the first time after the abovementioned provisions had come into force and which makes the first entry of a member of the family of a Turkish national who enjoys the legal status under Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol conditional on the requirement that, prior to entry, the family member can demonstrate the ability to communicate, in a basic way, in the German language?

| 2. | Does the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1) preclude the provision of national law mentioned in Question 1? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1) preclude the provision of national law mentioned in Question 1?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19974]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-93-005]


Young Gas Storage Company, Ltd., Notice of Tariff Compliance 
Filing

July 24, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 21, 1997, Young Gas Storage Company 
(Young), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Original Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 48B, Original Sheet No. 
48C, Second Revised Sheet No. 85 and Original Sheet No. 85A, to be 
effective August 1, 1997.
    Young states that the tariff sheets are filed in compliance with 
Order No. 587-C, and the order issued July 1, 1997 in Docket No. RP97-
93-004 as well as Section 154.203 of the Commission's regulations.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided 
in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19974 Filed 7-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2014052EN.01002303.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/23

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal di Cagliari (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Sergio Alfonso Lorrai

(Case C-224/13) (1)

1

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Fundamental rights - Excessive length of the criminal proceedings - Stay of criminal proceedings, for an indefinite period, in the event of sickness of the accused making him incapable of consciously participating in the proceedings - Irreversible sickness of the accused - Failure to implement European Union law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

2014/C 52/41

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal di Cagliari (Italy)

Criminal proceedings against

Criminal proceedings against

Sergio Alfonso Lorrai

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal di Cagliari — Interpretation of Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights read together with Article 6 TEU — Excessive length of the criminal proceedings — National legislation laying down the obligation to stay criminal proceedings, for an indefinite period, in the event of sickness of the accused, making him incapable of consciously participating in the proceedings — Obligation to subject the accused to periodic checks — Irreversible sickness of the accused.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunal di Cagliari (Italy).

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

1

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2221 

To prohibit the Secretary of Labor from finalizing a proposed rule under 

the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 relating to child labor. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 21, 2012 

Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. MORAN, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. TESTER, Mr. RUBIO, 

Mr. PAUL, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. WICKER, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. VITTER, Mr. 

LEE, Mr. MCCONNELL, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. 

BOOZMAN, Mr. BURR, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. COATS, Mr. 

CRAPO, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. ENZI, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. COBURN, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. 

JOHANNS, Mr. HATCH, Mr. KIRK, Mr. KYL, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. JOHNSON

of Wisconsin, Mr. RISCH, Mr. ROBERTS, and Mr. ALEXANDER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Labor from finalizing a proposed 

rule under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 relating to child labor. 

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 AND FINDINGS. 

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 

5 ‘‘Preserving America’s Family Farms Act’’. 

6 (b) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that— 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2221 IS

1 (1) family farms often depend on the contribu2 tions of youth for their successful operation; 

3 (2) regulations proposed to be adopted by the 

4 Department of Labor will adversely impact the long5 standing tradition of youth working on farms to gain 

6 valuable skills and lessons on hard work, character, 

7 and leadership; 

8 (3) the proposed regulations would be detri9 mental to the opportunity for youth to gain experi10 ential learning and hands-on skills for enrollment in 

11 vocational agricultural training; 

12 (4) the proposed regulations would obstruct the 

13 opportunity for youth to find rewarding employment 

14 and earn money for a college education or other 

15 meaningful purposes; 

16 (5) the proposed regulations will limit opportu17 nities to recruit young farmers to agriculture at a 

18 time when the average age of farmers continues to 

19 rise; and 

20 (6) working on a farm has become a way of life 

21 for thousands of youth across the rural United 

22 States. 

23 SEC. 2. RULE RELATING TO CHILD LABOR. 

24 The Secretary of Labor shall not finalize or enforce 

25 the proposed rule entitled ‘‘Child Labor Regulations, OrVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:54 Mar 22, 2012 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2221.IS S2221

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2221 IS

1 ders and Statements of Interpretation; Child Labor Viola2 tions—Civil Money Penalties’’ (published at 76 Fed. Reg. 

3 54836 (September 2, 2011)). 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS