alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 22 (Monday, February 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5068-5069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2545]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board


Agency Information Collection Under OMB Review

    The following proposal for collection of information under the 
provisions of

[[Page 5069]]

the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) is being submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval. Copies 
of the form and supporting documents may be obtained from the Agency 
Clearance Officer, Ellen Keys, (202) 927-5673. Comments regarding this 
information collection should be addressed to Ellen Keys, Surface 
Transportation Board, Room 2221, Washington, DC 20423 and to the Office 
of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Attn: Desk Officer for STB, Washington, DC 20503. When submitting 
comments, refer to the OMB number or the title of the form.
    Type of Clearance: Reinstatement, without change of a previously 
approved collection for which approval has expired.
    Office: Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and 
Administration.
    Title of Form: Annual Report Form R-1, Class I Railroads.
    OMB Form Number: 3120-0029.
    Agency Form Number: R-1.
    Frequency: Annually.
    No. of Respondents: 10.
    Total Burden Hours: 8,000.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-2545 Filed 1-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2736 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2736

    To clarify that section 8526(7) of the Elementary and Secondary 
 Education Act of 1965 does not apply with respect to the use of funds 
 for sports clubs, teams, training, or related activities provided for 
                               students.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 7, 2023

  Mr. Barrasso (for himself, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Braun, Mr. Budd, Mr. 
 Cotton, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Daines, Ms. Ernst, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. 
  Graham, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Marshall, Mr. 
Scott of Florida, Mr. Ricketts, Mr. Risch, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Schmitt, Mr. 
 Sullivan, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Thune, Ms. Collins, 
and Ms. Murkowski) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 
and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To clarify that section 8526(7) of the Elementary and Secondary 
 Education Act of 1965 does not apply with respect to the use of funds 
 for sports clubs, teams, training, or related activities provided for 
                               students.

    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 ``Allowing for Recreational Resources 
for Outdoor Wellness Act'' or the ``ARROW Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTION.

    Section 8526(7) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 (20 U.S.C. 7906(7)) is amended by inserting ``, except that this 
paragraph shall not apply to the use of funds under this Act for sports 
clubs, teams, training, or related activities provided for students'' 
before the period at the end.
                                 <all>
```
#### Marlon NEWKIRK, Appellant, v. J. W. LeBLANC and Dorothy LeBlanc, his wife, and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, a corporation, Appellees.

No. N-84.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 25, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 23, 1971.

Blalock, Holbrook, Lewis, Paul & Bennett, Jacksonville, for appellant.

J. Richard Moore, of Mathews, Osborne & Ehrlich, Jacksonville, for appellees.

JOHNSON, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a final order dismissing the second amended complaint without prejudice.

The facts gleaned from the record on appeal indicates that the appellant, who was the plaintiff below, was an invited guest to come on to the property of the defendants, J. W. LeBlanc and Dorothy LeBlanc, his wife, and that while on said property the plaintiff fell through a septic tank cover in the yard. It is alleged by the complaint, that said cover did not. comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements of the State of Florida with respect to the thickness of said cover.

The trial court judge commented that the second amended complaint was defective as the prior complaint and failed to state a cause of action on behalf of a social guest.

It appears to us that said amended complaint is defective in that it fails to allege essential elements required to impose liability on the property owner without actual knowledge of a dangerous condition existing or that there was an unreasonable known risk to the guest, or that the defendant had made any effort to warn the guest or to make the condition reasonably safe.

We agree that the trial court was correct in stating that said complaint did not state a cause of action.

The trial court specifically stated that said action was dismissed without prejudice.

The trial court is properly exercising its discretion in not dismissing said action with *65prejudice, and neither does it fall within the province of the trial court to tell the plaintiff how to draw his complaint.

We agree with the trial court and inasmuch as the trial court has not precluded the plaintiff from filing a new complaint, we affirm the final decree.

WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 26 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the amendments 

made to reporting of third party network transactions by the American 

Rescue Plan Act of 2021. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 23 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 2023 

Mr. HAGERTY (for himself, Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. 

CRAMER, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. LANKFORD, and Mr. 

BRAUN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the amendments made to reporting of third party network transactions by the American Rescue Plan Act 

of 2021. 

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 ‘‘Stop the Nosy Obses5 sion with Online Payments Act of 2023’’ or the ‘‘SNOOP 

6 Act of 2023’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 26 IS

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF MODIFICATION OF EXCEPTIONS FOR 

2 REPORTING OF THIRD PARTY NETWORK 

3 TRANSACTIONS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6050W(e) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(e) EXCEPTION FOR DE MINIMIS PAYMENTS BY

7 THIRD PARTY SETTLEMENT ORGANIZATIONS.—A third 

8 party settlement organization shall be required to report 

9 any information under subsection (a) with respect to third 

10 party network transactions of any participating payee only 

11 if— 

12 ‘‘(1) the amount which would otherwise be re13 ported under subsection (a)(2) with respect to such 

14 transactions exceeds $20,000, and 

15 ‘‘(2) the aggregate number of such transactions 

16 exceeds 200.’’. 

17 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

18 6050W(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

19 amended by striking ‘‘described in subsection 

20 (d)(3)(A)(iii)’’. 

21 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

22 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by 

23 subsection (a) shall apply to returns for calendar 

24 years beginning after December 31, 2021. 

25 (2) CLARIFICATION.—The amendment made by 

26 subsection (b) shall apply to transactions after the 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 26 IS

1 date of the enactment of the American Rescue Plan 

2 Act of 2021. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 188 (Monday, September 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 50910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25709]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Amended Language for Civilian Personnel Per Diem 
Bulletins 195, 196, and 197

AGENCY: DOD, Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee.

ACTION: Amended language for civilian personnel per diem bulletins 195, 
196, and 197.

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

SUMMARY: The Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee is 
publishing amended language for the above Civilian Personnel Per Diem 
Bulletin Numbers. Bulletin 194, effective 1 May 1997, announced ``the 
ceiling on reimbursements for actual subsistence expenses authorized 
civilian personnel when traveling to Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the 
Northern Mariana Islands and Possessions of the United States. For 
travel in those areas involving special or unique circumstances, the 
reimbursement of actual and necessary itemized daily subsistence 
expenses shall not exceed 300 percent of the applicable locality per 
diem allowance (rounded to the next higher dollar). For regulations 
governing maximum per diem rates and reimbursement of the actual and 
necessary subsistence expenses in the continental United States and the 
District of Columbia, see the Federal Travel Regulation (41 CFR 301-
304), parts 301-7 and 301-8 issued by the General Services 
Administration, and maximum per diem rates and reimbursement of the 
actual and necessary subsistence expenses in foreign overseas 
locations, see 6 FAM 150 or Standardized Regulation, Section 925 issued 
by U.S. Department of State.'' This change remains in effect. 
Subsequent Civilian Personnel Bulletins 195, 196, and 197 revised only 
the per diem rates for the non-foreign areas.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 18, 1997.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document gives notice of amended 
language for Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletins 195, 196, and 197 
previously published by the Per Diem Travel and Transportation 
Allowance Committee for non-foreign areas outside the continental 
United States. Distribution of Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletins by 
mail was discontinued. Per Diem Bulletins published periodically in the 
Federal Register now constitute the only notification of revision in 
per diem rates to agencies and establishments outside the Department of 
Defense. For more information or questions about per diem rates, please 
contact your local travel office.

    Dated: September 23, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-25709 Filed 9-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
# L_2009181EN.01002601.xml

| 14.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 181/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 181/26

---

DECISION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES

of 8 July 2009

appointing a judge to the Court of Justice of the European Communities

(2009/542/EC, Euratom)

THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 223 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 139 thereof,

Whereas, pursuant to Articles 5 and 7 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice and as a result of the resignation of Mr Peter JANN, a judge should be appointed to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for the remainder of Mr Peter JANN’s term of office, which ends on 6 October 2012,

HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Ms Maria BERGER is hereby appointed judge to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for the period from 7 October 2009 to 6 October 2012.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 8 July 2009.

The President

C. DANIELSSON

---
#### Patricia McFatter, wife of/and William McFATTER v. Johnny SIZEMORE and United Van Lines.

No. 9236.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

July 7, 1978.

Gordon K. Konrad, Gretna, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, Thomas M. Nosewicz, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.

Before LEMMON, GULOTTA and BOU-TALL, JJ.

LEMMON, Judge.

This case involves an intersectional collision in which plaintiff was injured. The trial court held that defendants, the driver and operator of a large moving van which was parked within two to five feet of the intersection, was the sole cause of the accident, and defendants have appealed. The only issue on appeal is whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent.

The collision occurred on a clear day at the intersection of Iberia Street, a two-lane, two-way street, and Wall Boulevard, a divided street with one lane for travel and one lane for parking on each side of the median.

Prior to the accident plaintiff was traveling east on Iberia and stopped in obedience to a stop sign controlling the intersection, intending to proceed directly across. As she had approached the corner, she saw some traffic coming from her left, but when she came to a stop at the intersection her view to the left was completely obstructed by the van. She waited until the traffic she had seen had passed, and then she began to edge forward slowly in order to check for additional oncoming traffic, when suddenly she was struck on the left front fender.

A city ordinance prohibited parking within 40 feet of an intersection, and the van driver’s violation of the ordinance and of rules of reasonable driving caused the view of each motorist to be obstructed. This thoughtless and selfish parking was clearly a legal cause of the accident.

Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the plaintiff which falls *458below the standard to which he should conform for his own protection, the standard being that of a reasonable man under like circumstances. *Smolinski v. Taulli,*276 So.2d 286 (La.1973). Here, plaintiff could not turn to her right without entering a portion of the traffic lane, could not back up because of other cars, and could not see to her left, although she leaned forward as far as possible. Her conduct in moving forward slowly constituted reasonable care under the circumstances, at least when considered in a reciprocal duty relationship to the duty of the operator of the parked van. It would be completely illogical to hold that the van operator had a duty imposed by statute and reason to refrain from parking in a position that creates a risk of danger to motorists entering the intersection and then to hold that the van operator is not liable for an accident resulting from that exact risk when a motorist, proceeding cautiously into the intersection, is injured because of the obstruction of lookout created by the van operator’s breach of duty.

The judgment is affirmed.

*AFFIRMED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-11-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,844,712
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,397
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,870,109
<PP&E>                                       2,117,498
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,987,607
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          372,967
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,614,640
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,987,607
<SALES>                                         42,538
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,538
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,762
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 32,649
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             32,649
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,649
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### James Lloyd BYRD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-683.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 19, 1971.

A. John Goshgarian, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

*2PER CURIAM.

On September 26, 1966, the appellant James Lloyd Byrd was charged by information with the crime of assault with intent to commit rape, to which he pleaded not guilty when arraigned. Thereafter, when brought to trial, he offered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated assault, which plea was accepted and acted upon by the trial court. He was adjudged guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years, on February 3,1967.

Two years later, on March 26, 1969, he filed in the trial court a motion under Rule 1.850 CrPR, 33 F.S.A. for relief from the judgment and sentence. As grounds the defendant alleged his guilty plea was not voluntarily made and that his representation by counsel (public defender) was inadequate. The trial court denied the motion summarily, and the defendant appealed. In so ruling on the defendant’s motion the trial court was not in error. The ground of the motion claiming the guilty plea of the defendant to a lesser offense was not voluntarily made was refuted by the record of the proceedings in the trial court incident thereto. See Garcia v. State, Fla. App.1969, 228 So.2d 300. The contention of the defendant that he was not properly represented by counsel because he conferred with counsel only a short period of time was correctly rejected by the court. See State v. Barton, Fla.1967, 194 So.2d 241; Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1970, 236 So.2d 473.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the (i) Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-95536) pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan, 1995
Stock Plan, 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and 1995 Director Option Plan of
Netscape Communications Corporation, (ii) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
33-99198) pertaining to the 1993 Incentive Stock Option Plan of Collabra
Software, Inc., (iii) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-4222) pertaining
to the 1993 Stock Option Plan of InSoft, Inc., (iv) Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-4478) pertaining to the 1996 Stock Plan of Netcode Corporation, (v)
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333- 29931) pertaining to the 1995 Stock
Option/Issuance Plan of DigitalStyle Corporation and the 1996 Stock Option Plan
of Portola Communications, Inc., (vi) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-38469) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Plan of Netscape Communications
Corporation, (vii) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-44135) pertaining to
the 1995 Stock Option Plan of KIVA Software Corporation and the 1995 Stock Plan
of Netscape Communications Corporation, (viii) Registration Statement (Form S-3
No. 333-29933) and related Prospectus pertaining to the registration of the
common stock issued in connection with the business combination of DigitalStyle
Corporation and Portola Communications, Inc., (ix) Registration Statement (Form
S-3 No. 333-42401) and related Prospectus pertaining to the registration of the
common stock issued in connection with the purchase of membership interests in
Actra Business Systems, LLC, and (x) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No.
333-44129) and related Prospectus pertaining to the registration of the common
stock issued in connection with the business combination of KIVA Software
Corporation, of our report dated January 23, 1998 except for Note 14 as to which
the date is March 25, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the
preceding paragraph with respect to the consolidated financial statement
schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Netscape Communications
Corporation for 1997.

                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 27, 1998
# R iV 

# D U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ) ) 

## /l.UG 17 2015 HEARING DOCKET In the Matter of:
REGENT AEROSPACE CORPORATION ) FDMSDocketFAA-2013-0851 ) FAA Case No. 2011GL110026 )

COMPLAINANT'S NOTICE OF APPEAL Pursuant to section 233(a) ofthe Rules ofPractice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 14 C.F.R. § 13.233(a), the Complainant hereby appeals the initial decision ofAdministrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin inthis matter, served July 27,2015.

Respectfully submitted, Peter J. Lynch Assistant ChiefCounsel

for Enforcement, AGC-300

# J~. James W. Tegtmeier, Manager, Midwest En orcement Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Federal Aviation Administration 2300 E. Devon Avenue, Room 479 Des Plaines, IL 60018 (847) 294-7058 Dated: August 11, 20152 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, certified return-receipt requested, two copies ofthe Complainant's Notice ofAppeal In the Matter of Regent Aerospace Corporation, FDMS Docket FAA-20 13-0851, FAA Case No. 2011 GLll0026, addressed to: JohnS. Hoff, Esq. Jeffrey Clement, Esq. HoffLaw Group Suite 3300 135 S. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60603-4134 In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, certified return-receipt requested, the original and one copy ofthe foregoing document to: Hearing Docket Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Bldg., Suite 2W1000

# QJ~~~nRj**JirlA~** 

# _, Dated: August II, 2015