alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Skip Navigation

#         Archive-It      

Login

      - HOME
      - EXPLORE
      - LEARN MORE
      - CONTACT US

### The leading web archiving service for collecting and accessing cultural heritage on the web 

Built at the Internet Archive

        - Explore
        - U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
        - News Releases

#  News Releases 

**Collected by:** U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

**Archived since:**Sep, 2013

**Description:**
This collection includes HHS news and announcements from 1991+.

**Subject:**    	    Government - US Federal,     	    Science & Health

**Creator:**    	    OS/ASPA

## Narrow Your Results

**Creator**

Sort By:
- Count
- (A-Z)
              - HHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (ASPA) (1)

**Categories**

Sort By:
- Count
- (A-Z)
              - Affordable Care Act (1)

**Group**

Sort By:
- Count
- (A-Z)
              - HHS News Releases (1)

Sites for this collection are listed below. Narrow your results at left, or enter a search query below to		      find a site, specific URL or to search the text of archived webpages.
Clear
            - Date :  2014           X        
            - Date :  2014           X        
            - HHS_Official :  Melissa Stafford Jones           X        

              - Sites
              - Search Page Text

Page 1 of 1  (1 Total Results)

**Sort By:**
                - Title (A-Z)
                - Title (Z-A)
                - URL (A-Z)
                - URL (Z-A)

### 	  Title:       Secretary Burwell announces Region IX Director of HHS    	  

### URL:     https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2014/11/19/secretary-burwell-announces-region-ix-director-of-hhs.html

**Description:**	  	Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell today announced the appointment of Melissa Stafford Jones as the Region IX Regional Director.	  

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

**Creator:**    	    HHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (ASPA)

**Date:**        	2014        

**Group:**    	    HHS News Releases

**Categories:**    	    Affordable Care Act

**HHS Official:**        	Melissa Stafford Jones        

Page 1 of 1  (1 Total Results)

Archive It

#### Archive-It 

*Built at the Internet Archive*
2014 Archive-ItThe leading web archiving service for collecting and accessing  cultural heritage on the web 

      - Home
      - Learn More         - About Archive-It
        - News/Press
        - Meet the Team
        - Publications
      - Contact Us
# C_2022051EN.01001902.xml

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 20 September 2021 — FZ v BA, DA, DV and CG

(Case C-586/21)

(2022/C 51/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social n.o 1 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FZ

Defendants: BA, DA, DV and CG

Question referred

Does Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive (EC) 2001/23 of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, (1) and consequently the contents of the directive, apply to a situation in which the notary in post in a notary’s office — who is both a public official and also the private-sector employer of the office’s employees, with the employment relationship being governed by general employment legislation and by a sectoral Collective Agreement — succeeds the outgoing post-holder, takes on the previous notary’s Protocol, continues to provide services at the same place of work using the same material facilities, and takes on the staff who had worked for the previous notary who had held that post?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.

---
EXHIBIT 10.1

    

    

    Form of Amendment No. 3 to Jeffrey D. Pribor’s Employment Agreement

    

    

    This Amendment No. 3 (the “Amendment”),
      dated as of March 16, 2021 (the “Effective Date”), is between International Seaways, Inc. (the “Company”) and Jeffrey D. Pribor (the “Executive”).

    WHEREAS, the
      Company and the Executive previously entered into an employment agreement, dated November 9, 2016, as amended as of April 5, 2019 and April 2, 2020 (the “Employment
          Agreement”).

    WHEREAS, the
      Company and the Executive wish to amend the Employment Agreement in accordance with Section 13(c) thereof.

    NOW, THEREFORE,
      in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants herein and for other good and valuable consideration, conditioned and effective upon the occurrence of the Closing and the Assignment, the parties agree as follows:

    
      	
              1.

            	
              Section 3(a) is hereby amended by replacing “$510,000” with “$530,000”.

            


    

    
      	
              2.

            	
              Except as provided herein, the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall
                be binding on the Company.

            


    

    
      	
              3.

            	
              This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be an
                original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.

            


    

     [Signature Page Follows]

    
      
        


    

    

    

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to the Employment Agreement as of the date first
      written above.

    	 	
            Jeffrey D. Pribor

          
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	
            International Seaways, Inc.

          
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	
            Name:  Lois K. Zabrocky

          
	 	
            Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.2 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

I, Ricardo Bernardes, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of California Steel Industries, Inc. (the “Registrant”); 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and we have: 

 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of theRegistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) disclosed in this report any change inthe Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 

 

5. The Registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function): 

 

(a) all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 8, 2004
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determ ined that this opinio n should not be published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set fo rth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 16, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50570 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaint iff- Appellee,

v. RICARDO MONTANO-LARA,

Defendant-Appellant.

–––––––––––––– Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Texas No. 2:04-CR-698-ALL-WWJ

–––––––––––––– Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ricardo Montano-Lara appeals from his guilt y- plea conviction fo r illegal reentry int o the Unit ed States. He argues that the district court misunderstood its sentencing discretion under U nit ed States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). He concedes that, because he failed to object on this basis in district court, this issue is reviewed only fo r plain error. Examination of the sentencing transcript does not indicate that the district court failed to recognize its proper role in the post- B ooker sentencing scheme. Accordingly, Montano-Lara has not shown plain error on this basis.No. 05-50570 -2- Montano-Lara’s consti

tuti onal challenge is fo reclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. Unit ed States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Alt hough Montano-Lara contends that Almendarez-Torres was inco rrectl y decided and th at a majo rity of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments

on the basis th at Almendarez-Torres remains binding. S ee Unit ed States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Montano-Lara properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHI N GTO N , D
. C
. 20 4 60

Mr. Tim Lohn er American Electric Power En v ironmental Se r v ices l R ive rside Plaza Co lumbus , Ohio 43215 D ear Mr. Lohner: 

### JUL 3 1 2 0i;)

O FF ICE. OF WATE R

Th e U.S. Environmental Protect ion Ag enc y has received your reque st for plan t-specifi c information , in c lud i ng estimate d compliance costs and pollutant removals , related to the proposed r evisions to the Efflue nt Limitati o n s G uid elines and Standards for the S t eam Ele ctric P ower Generating Point Source Category (Docket ID No. E PA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 )
. In respo n se to your request, plea se find enclo se d a di sc containi ng one file and six attachme nt s for each plant for which costs/r e movals are be in g pro vi ded
. The file and en closure s present the inp ut values and the costs and pollutant remo vals for the requ ested plant s , as well as additional inf o rmation re gard ing E P A ' s estimation of these valu es. The EPA is providing cos ts and pollutant remov als for the fo ll owing plants: 

## • John E. A mo s (09 161) ; 

# • Big Sandy (061 18 ); 

## • Cardi n al (0326 5) ; 

## • Cli nch River (07727) ; 

## • Conesville (0 1402); 

## • Flint C reek ( 03978) ; 

## • General James M. Gavin (04706) ; 

## • Glen Lyn (0 4711 ): 

## • Kammer (021 49 ); 

## • Kanawha River (0840 5); 

## • Lieb erman (06627); 

# • Mitche ll (0 1236); 

# • Mounta in ee r (04543);

I nte rn et A d dress ( URL ) • h ttp :/ /www

. epa . gov Recycled/ Recyclable • P nn t ed w1 th Ve getab l e Oil B ase d I nks o n 1 00% Post con s umer. Process C h lori ne Free Recycl e d Pa per• Muskingum River (09325); • No rtheast ern (06933); • Oklaunion ( 00 376); • Picw ay (05802); • Pirkey (06635); • Riverside (03274); • Rockport ( 0 167 1 ) ; • Philip Sporn (05283); • Tanners Creek (05872); • We l sh (06739) ; and • Wilkes (07535). The information provided in the e nclosed disc may contain information that was claimed by your company's plants as confidential b u siness informatio n (C BI) in response to the Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Pow e r Generat ing Effluent Guidelines. The E P A is not re spo nsible for the re lease of this CBI if you or others in your company provide these attachments to other parties. If yo u have any que stions regardin g these estimate s, please contact me at (202) 566 -1755 or al icea. jezebe le @epa. gov. Thank you for your interest in the steam electric effluent gui d e lin es rulemaking process. Sincerely ,

E nclosures
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 12

- 00117

- CR

JERRY DON WHATLEY, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 294th District Court Van Zandt County, Texas Trial Court No. CR05

- 00442

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.2 

### O RDER
Richard A. Schmidt, Assistant Criminal District Attorney for Van Zandt County, has file d a motion to extend time to file the State’s brief in this matter. The brief was due March 22,
2013. In his motion, counsel does not provide the Court with a reasonable explanation of the need for an extension of time, stating only that he was assigned to complete the appellate brief in this case in addition to his normal prosecutorial duties and that he has “been unable to complete the . . . brief in the time allotted.” This Court interprets Rule 10.5(b)(2) of the Texas Rule s of Appellate Procedure as requiring counsel to provide the Court with specific information to justify a requested extension of time, including the cause numbers of other briefs filed, the dates they were filed, the dates of trials, how long those trials are expected to last, etc. Broad, general statements do not provide the required facts and are not adequate to meet the requirements of the rule. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 10.5(b)(2). All future motions to extend time filed with this Court must contain case

- specific information adequate to justify the request, or they will be denied. In this instance, we grant the motion for an extension, for a period of thirty days, making appellant’s brief now due on or before April 22, 2013. Further requests for extensions will not be looked upon wi th favor.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT
Date: April 2, 2013
#### Nicholas F. LENSSEN, Jr. v. Edith B. LENSSEN.

No. 38691.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 222 So.2d 298.
# C_2022191EN.01000801.xml

| 10.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/8

---

Appeal brought on 22 December 2021 by YG against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2021 in Case T-599/20, YG v European Commission

(Case C-818/21 P)

(2022/C 191/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: YG (represented by: A. Champetier, avocate, S. Rodrigues, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested judgment, declare the Appellant’s requests in Case T-599/20 admissible and well-founded, and consequently |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested judgment, declare the Appellant’s requests in Case T-599/20 admissible and well-founded, and consequently

| — | annul the contested decisions in first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decisions in first instance;

or, if this is not possible,

| — | refer the case before the General Court for judgment, and, in any case, |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case before the General Court for judgment, and, in any case,

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is lodged against the judgment of 20 October 2021 adopted by the General Court of the European Union, dismissing the action lodged by the Appellant in case T-599/20, YG v European Commission.

In support of his appeal, the Appellant raises the following pleas in law:

| — | Distortions of evidence; |
| --- | --- |

—

Distortions of evidence;

| — | Misconstructions of pleas — Errors of reasoning — Breach of rights of defence; |
| --- | --- |

—

Misconstructions of pleas — Errors of reasoning — Breach of rights of defence;

| — | Errors of law. |
| --- | --- |

—

Errors of law.

---
#### YOUNG v. UNITED STATES.

No. 1438.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Feb. 6, 1937.

Guy H. Sigler, of Ardmore, Okl. (P. M. Jackson, of Ardmore, Okl., on the brief), for appellant.

Earl Pruet, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Muskogee, Okl. (Cleon A. Summers, U. S. Atty., of Muskogee, Okl., on the brief), for the United States.

Before LEWIS, PHILLIPS, and BRATTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted and sentenced on nine counts of an indictment charging offenses against the United States.

This appeal was taken on June 5, 1936. The bill of exceptions was settled and filed August S, 1936.

Rule 9 of the appellate criminal rules (28 U.S.C.A. following section 723a) in part reads:

“The appellant, within thirty (30) days after the taking of the appeal, or within such further time as within said period of thirty days may be fixed by the trial judge, shall procure to be settled, and shall file with the clerk of the court in which the case was tried, a bill of exceptions setting forth the proceedings upon which the appellant wishes to rely.”

The thirty-day period, excluding Sundays and legal holidays (see Rule 13, appellate criminal rules [28 U.S.C.A. following section 723a]), expired July 11, 1936.

The bill of exceptions recited an order made within the thirty-day period extending the time to settle and file the bill of exceptions to August 1, 1936.

The clerk has certified up an order made on July 28, 1936, undertaking to extend the time for settling and filing the bill of exceptions to August 5, 1936.

The last order, not having been made within the thirty-day period, was ineffectual. Yep v. U. S. (C.C.A.10) 81 F.(2d) 637; Slade v. U. S. (C.C.A.10) 85 F.(2d) 786; Goddard v. U. S. (C.C.A.10) 86 F.(2d) 884; Fewox v. U. S. (C.C.A.5) 77 F.(2d) 699; U. S. v. Adamowicz (C.C.A.2) 82 F.(2d) 288; Spero v. U. S. (C.C.A.8) 85 F.(2d) 134; Wolpa v. U. S. (C.C. A.8) 84 F.(2d) 829; Cusamano v. U. S. (C.C.A.8) 85 F.(2d) 132.

The bill of exceptions not having been settled and filed within the time required by the rules must be stricken. See cases cited above.

All of the assignments of error are predicated on the bill of exceptions. The bill not being before us, assignments may not be considered.

The judgment is therefore affirmed. Let the mandate issue immediately.
#### HUNTLEY v. SNIDER.

No. 3170.

Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Feb. 12, 1937.

For former opinion, see 86 F.(2d) 539.

Alexander G. Gould, of Boston, Mass., for appellant.

Before BINGHAM, WILSON and MORTON, Circuit Judges.

MORTON, Circuit Judge.

The petitioner requests a rehearing on the ground that its ninth assignment of *336error was not passed upon. The assignment was considered but was not deémed to present questions sufficiently doubtful to call for discussion. The appellant’s contention, viz. that the trustee in bankruptcy, by settling with the appellant’s wife with respect to property fraudulently transferred to her by the bankrupt, estopped himself and all creditors of the bankrupt estate from opposing discharge, is plainly, unsound. There are many decisions against it. In re Dayis (D.C.) 34 F.(2d) 778; In re Quackenbush (D.C.) 102 F. 282, at page 285; In re Sussman (D.C.) 190 F. 111; In re Jacobson (D.C.) 9 F.(2d) 139; In re Singer (C.C.A.) 251 F. 51; In re Russell (D.C.) 52 F.(2d) 749. The offense of fraudulent concealment is complete when the bankrupt has failed to disclose his property to his trustee after having had reasonable opportunity to do so. His breach of duty is not excused if the trustee discovers the concealed property and recaptures it. In re Singer, 251 F. 51 (C.C.A. 2); In re Quackenbush, supra; In re Sussman, supra. Moreover, as the appellee points out, the concealed property, which is described in the trustee’s petition to compromise and is that with respect to which the settlement was made, did not include certain other property which the referee found belonged to the bankrupt and had been fraudulently concealed. All the assignments of error were considered, and none was found to be well taken.

The petition for rehearing is denied.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

EUGENE TODD, 

Appellant, 

v.

Case No. 5D22-1523

LT Case No. 2022-30646-COCI

CONQUESTOR TODD AND TREMALE

MORGAN, 

Appellees. 

_______________________________/ 

Decision filed September 20, 2022

Appeal from the County Court

for Volusia County, 

Wesley Heidt, Judge.

Eugene Todd, Daytona Beach, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, C.J., EISNAUGLE and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
# C_2022084EN.01002501.xml

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 November 2021 — Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau

(Case C-681/21)

(2022/C 84/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Authority bringing the appeal on a point of law: Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter, Eisenbahnen und Bergbau, represented by the Finanzprokuratur (body providing legal advice to the Austrian Government)

Interested party: B

Question referred

Are Article 2(1) and 2(2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) and the principles of legal certainty, maintenance of established rights and effectiveness of EU law to be interpreted as precluding national legislation — such as that at issue in the main proceedings — under which a previously advantaged category of civil servants is retroactively no longer entitled to pension benefits accruing on the basis of a pension adjustment, and which, in that way (retroactive removal of the previously advantaged category by now placing it on an equal footing with the previously disadvantaged category), has the effect that the previously disadvantaged category of civil servants is also not/no longer entitled to pension benefits accruing on the basis of the pension adjustment to which the latter category would have been entitled because of discrimination on grounds of age which has already been (on several occasions) judicially established — as a result of the non-application of a national provision which is contrary to EU law for the purpose of establishing equal treatment with the previously advantaged category?

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

---