alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2018)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 29663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13805]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2018 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 29663]]


                Notice of June 22, 2018

                
Continuation of the National Emergency With 
                Respect to the Western Balkans

                On June 26, 2001, by Executive Order 13219, the 
                President declared a national emergency with respect to 
                the Western Balkans, pursuant to the International 
                Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706), to 
                deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the 
                national security and foreign policy of the United 
                States constituted by the actions of persons engaged 
                in, or assisting, sponsoring, or supporting (i) 
                extremist violence in the Republic of Macedonia and 
                elsewhere in the Western Balkans region, or (ii) acts 
                obstructing implementation of the Dayton Accords in 
                Bosnia or United Nations Security Council Resolution 
                1244 of June 10, 1999, in Kosovo. The President 
                subsequently amended that order in Executive Order 
                13304 of May 28, 2003, to take additional steps with 
                respect to acts obstructing implementation of the Ohrid 
                Framework Agreement of 2001 relating to Macedonia.

                The actions of persons threatening the peace and 
                international stabilization efforts in the Western 
                Balkans, including acts of extremist violence and 
                obstructionist activity, continue to pose an unusual 
                and extraordinary threat to the national security and 
                foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, 
                the national emergency declared on June 26, 2001, and 
                the measures adopted on that date and thereafter to 
                deal with that emergency, must continue in effect 
                beyond June 26, 2018. Therefore, in accordance with 
                section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 
                U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the 
                national emergency with respect to the Western Balkans 
                declared in Executive Order 13219.

                This notice shall be published in the Federal Register 
                and transmitted to the Congress.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    June 22, 2018.

[FR Doc. 2018-13805
Filed 6-22-18; 11:15 am]
Billing code 3295-F8-P
Qualified Products List for Government Printing Papers

JCP Code O‐65 Non‐Compliant Xerographic Copy Paper                                                

(0% Post‐consumer Fiber)

The brand names of xerographic copy papers listed below have been tested by U. S. Government Publishing

Office (GPO) and there physical properties were determined to meet the requirements of the JCP Paper

Standards.  However, these products contain no post‐consumer fiber and therefore, are not in compliance with

JCP O‐65.  Questions can be emailed to: qcimd@gpo.gov.

Brand Name       Manufacturer/Supplier

Boise X‐9       Boise Paper

Finch Laser Opaque     Finch Fine Paper

Tidal DP     International Paper

Fore MP       International Paper

Spectrum       Georgia Pacific

Relay MP       International Paper

Domtar Copy       Domtar Paper

Husky Copy       Domtar Paper      

This information is current as of October 2018.
#### CITY OF MIAMI, Petitioner, v. Jefferson Owen KEY and the Florida Department of Commerce, Respondents.

No. 43396.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 30, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 7, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 15.1




                  ACCOUNTANTS' AWARENESS LETTER



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549


Re:  Global Marine Inc. Registration Statements

We are aware that our report dated November 11, 1998, on our
review of the condensed consolidated interim financial information
of Global Marine Inc. and subsidiaries for the three and nine months
ended September 30, 1998, and included in this Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q is incorporated by reference in (i) the prospectus
constituting part of the Company's Registration Statements on Form S-8
(Registration Nos. 33-32088, 33-40961, and 33-63326), respectively,
for the Global Marine Inc. 1989 Stock Option and Incentive Plan,
(ii) the prospectus constituting part of the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-40266) for the Global
Marine Savings Incentive Plan, (iii) the prospectus constituting part
of the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration
No. 33-40961) for the Global Marine Inc. 1990 Non-Employee Director
Stock Option Plan, (iv) the prospectus constituting part of the Company's
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-57691) for the
Global Marine Inc. 1994 Non-Employee Stock Option and Incentive Plan and
(v) the combined prospectus constituting part of the Company's Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Registration Nos. 33-58577 and 333-49807) for the
proposed offering of up to $500,000,000 of debt securities, preferred stock
and/or common stock.  Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of
1933, this report should not be considered a part of any of said registration
statements prepared or certified by us within the meaning of Sections 7 and
11 of that Act.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Houston, Texas
November 13, 1998
#### Willie C. CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1004.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 21, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
H. Res. 399

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

April 12, 1994.

Resolved, That Representative Obey of Wisconsin is hereby elected Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Attest:

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                         9
                     
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000

       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                        1,773
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                        1,121
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                100
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                  0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   4,342
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        3,558
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          4,342
<LOANS>                                      52,022
<ALLOWANCE>                                     339
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               93,793
<DEPOSITS>                                   51,872
<SHORT-TERM>                                 20,930
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                           1,047
<LONG-TERM>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                         77
<OTHER-SE>                                   13,866
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               93,793
<INTEREST-LOAN>                               3,893
<INTEREST-INVEST>                             2,054
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                132
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                              6,079
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                            2,596
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            3,389
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                         2,690
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    21
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                               1,799
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 919
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                    635
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   .78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 3.34
<LOANS-NON>                                     137
<LOANS-PAST>                                      0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                  0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 334
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                309
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    26
<RECOVERIES>                                     35
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               339
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            339
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                               0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         339
        


</TABLE>
259 La. 754

#### Henry J. WLOCHOWICZ v. Harold E. FORBES, Director of Personnel, State of Louisiana.

No. 51580.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 28, 1971.

In re: Henry J. Wlochowicz applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Louisiana Civil Service Commission. 248 So.2d 69.

Application denied. The result is correct.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted. Petitioner’s appeal to Civil Service Commission set forth grounds for appeal (deprivation of his rights, La. Const. Art. 14, Sec. 15(O) (2)) and that commission has jurisdiction under La.Const. Art. 14, Sec. 15(O) (1), Commission rules to the contrary can not prevail.
#### Lolita Ann Mathas HAY v. Wilburn Cole HAY.

No. 7881.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Oct. 2, 1969.

Joseph S. Russo, New Orleans, for relator.

Robert J. Donovan, Jr., of Love, Rigby, Donovan, Dehan & Love, Shreveport, for respondent.

Before LANDRY, SARTAIN, and ELLIS, JJ.

ELLIS, Judge.

Final judgment of divorce, fixing custody, alimony and child support was rendered between the parties hereto by the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo on February 11, 1969.

On June 5, 1969, plaintiff filed a rule to increase child support in the Family Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, where defendant was then domiciled. Defendant filed declinatory exceptions of improper venue and lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

The minutes of the court reveal that on June 16, 1969, the judge heard argument on the exceptions and, for oral reasons, “sustained the objection”. On application of plaintiff, we issued an alternative writ of certiorari, ordering the judge to “recall his decree of June 16, 1969, sustaining the exceptions of venue and jurisdiction, and to overrule same and continue with the trial of this case” or to show cause why *755the writ should not be made peremptory. The latter alternative was chosen, and, in due course, the record was transmitted to this court.

We now find that no judgment has been signed by the trial judge, and there is therefore nothing for us to rule on. If the judge intended to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction, the judgment to be rendered would be appealable. On the other hand, if he intended to find improper venue and transfer the case to another court, the judgment is interlocutory and not appeal-able in the absence of a showing of irreparable injury. Broussard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 210 So.2d 411 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1968).

The writ is, therefore, recalled and the case remanded to the trial court, with all costs to be paid by applicant.

Writ recalled.
#### Herminio Perez ADAMES, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Joseph A. CALIFANO, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant, Appellee.

No. 76-1110.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Argued Feb. 14, 1977.

Decided March 31, 1977.

Juan F. Doval, Hato Rey, P. R., for plaintiff, appellant.

Jose A. Anglada, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Juan, P. R., with whom Julio Morales Sanchez, U. S. Atty., San Juan, P. R., was on brief, for appellee.

Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, CAMPBELL, Circuit Judge, and VAN OOSTERHOUT, Senior Circuit Judge.*

*

 Of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

COFFIN, Chief Judge.

The issue here is whether appellant has twenty quarters of coverage during the forty calendar quarters immediately preceding his disability. Appellant, since 1961, has filed three applications, and has had four hearings at the administrative level, review by the Appeals Council, and review by the district court. The instant proceeding followed a 1968 decision by an Administrative Law Judge, affirmed by the Appeals Council, rejecting as insufficient certain evidence that appellant, during 1961 and 1962, was an employee of one Perez Cardona. The present proceeding commenced in 1971, and, after a fire destroyed certain records, hearings were held in 1974. The focus of these hearings was evidence that, during 1961, appellant worked for a hitherto unmentioned employer.

The briefs, and indeed the district court’s opinion, have proceeded on the assumption that what is at issue is the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence introduced by appellant to overcome the determination of the Administrative Law Judge. But it seems clear to us that the judge-made no factual findings. He ruled that under 20 C.F.R. § 404.957(c)(7) a decision that a claimant lacked the necessary quarters of coverage could be reopened only under certain limited circumstances not present here.1 The case cited by the judge, *2*Pleasant v. Richardson,*450 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1971), *cert. denied,*405 U.S. 1072, 92 S.Ct. 1524, 31 L.Ed.2d 805 (1972), even barred a reopening to correct the concededly erroneous omission, some years earlier, of a critical quarter of coverage. In any event, the decision not to reopen a claim is not subject to judicial review in the absence of a constitutional claim. *Califano v. Sanders, -*U.S. -, -, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977). To the extent that the decision is reviewable as a denial of a new claim, we think the result justified by administrative res judicata. *Ruiz-Olan*v. *Secretary, Dep’t of Health, Education and Welfare,*511 F.2d 1056 (1st Cir. 1975).

*Affirmed.*

1

. 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(5)(C) [to correct errors apparent on the face of the records]; §. 405(c)(5)(D) [to transfer items to or from records of the Railroad Retirement Board]; or *2§ 405(c)(5)(G) [“to correct errors made in the allocation, to individuals or periods, of wages . entered in the records of the Secretary”].
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 95

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require the National Labor

Relations Board to assert jurisdiction in a labor dispute which occurs

on Johnston Atoll, an unincorporated territory of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mrs. MINK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Education and Labor

A BILL

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require the

National Labor Relations Board to assert jurisdiction

in a labor dispute which occurs on Johnston Atoll, an

unincorporated territory of the United States.

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

3 SECTION. 1. JURISDICTION OF NATIONAL LABOR RELA4 TIONS BOARD.

5 Paragraph (1) of section 14(c) of the National Labor

6 Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 164(c)(1)) is amended—

7 (1) by striking the period after ‘‘1959’’; and

8 (2) by inserting the following:
2

•HR 95 IH

1 ‘‘: Provided further, That the Board shall not decline to

2 assert jurisdiction over a labor dispute which occurs on

3 Johnston Atoll, an unicorporated territory of the United

4 States.’’.

Æ
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                      GTE NORTH INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARY
        Statement of the Consolidated Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                   (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

(Dollars in Millions)                                  Nine Months Ended
                                                       September 30, 1999
                                                       ------------------

<S>                                                    <C>
Net earnings available for fixed charges:
  Income from continuing operations                    $            481.7
  Add - Income taxes                                                293.4
      - Fixed charges                                               134.1
                                                       ------------------

Adjusted earnings                                      $            909.2
                                                       ==================
Fixed charges:

  Interest expense                                     $            121.0
  Portion of rent expense representing interest                      13.1
                                                       ------------------

Adjusted fixed charges                                 $            134.1
                                                       ==================


RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                                   6.78
</TABLE>
June 24, 2015

Mr. Jerry Bruce 511 Lake Winnebago Lane Boulder City, NV 89006

Dear Mr. Bruce:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your March 12, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 0640), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
257 La. 164

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Tommy Harold MYERS v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary et al.

No. 50988.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1970.

In re: Tommy Harold Myers applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and habeas corpus.

Writ denied. After an evidentiary hearing, it is demonstrated beyond a doubt that the application is not founded on fact and there is no basis for granting this writ.
#### Antonio GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. Sharon L. GONZALEZ, Appellee.

No. 69-844.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 21, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 9, 2018 s0306

Order 

Clerk

March 9, 2018

155856

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 155856

COA: 337343

Berrien CC: 04-404393-FC

RODNEY ALLAN HUBBARD,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 4, 2017 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to 

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

MARKMAN, C.J., (concurring).

On defendant’s direct appeal, I concurred in the order denying leave to appeal but 

observed “that this Court, in an appropriate case, should revisit its conclusion in People v 

Tobey, 401 Mich 141, 148 (1977), that voiceprint evidence is inadmissible because it has 

not ‘achieved general scientific acceptance as a reliable identification device . . . .’ ” 

People v Hubbard, 480 Mich 898 (2007) (MARKMAN, J., concurring). I noted that at that 

time, “[s]ince Tobey was decided, 11 other states have addressed the admissibility of 

voiceprint evidence: five states have admitted such evidence, . . . and six states have 

rejected such evidence . . . .” Id. I continue to believe that this Court at some point 

should revisit the admissibility of voiceprint evidence; however, in my judgment, this is 

not the case to do so because defendant previously submitted the same voiceprint analysis 

in conjunction with his unsuccessful second motion for relief from judgment. Therefore, 

defendant cannot receive relief on that basis in the instant motion for relief from 

judgment. See MCR 6.508(D)(2). Accordingly, I concur in this Court’s order denying 

leave to appeal.
# C_2022213EN.01001602.xml

| 30.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bottrop — Germany) — Fuhrmann-2-GmbH v B.

(Case C-249/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 8(2) - Distance contracts concluded by electronic means - Information requirements for the trader - Activation of a button or a similar function in order to place the order with an obligation to pay - Unambiguous formulation corresponding to the words ‘order with obligation to pay’ - Taking account only of the words on the button or similar function for the purposes of assessing the ‘corresponding’ nature of such a formulation)

(2022/C 213/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Bottrop

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fuhrmann-2-GmbH

Defendant: B.

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of determining — in the context of an ordering process relating to the conclusion of a distance contract by electronic means — whether a form of words displayed on the ordering button or on a similar function, such as the formulation ‘complete booking’, is a formulation ‘corresponding’ to the words ‘order with obligation to pay’, within the meaning of that provision, only the words that appear on that button or that similar function should be taken into account.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 26.7.2021.

---