alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. EG12-16-000, EG12-17-000, EG12-18-000, EG12-19-000, EG12-20-000, EG12-21-000, EG12-22-000, EG12-23-000]

Take notice that during the month of February 2012, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).

Dated: March 2, 2012.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012-5616 Filed 3-7-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Margaret M. Noble et al., Plaintiffs, v Domenico Ambrosio et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.) Community Hospital of Western Suffolk, Second Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v Attilio Spadafora et al., Second Third-Party Defendants-Appellants.

In a medical malpractice action, the second third-party defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), dated December 20, 1988, as granted that branch of the second third-party plaintiff’s motion which was to dismiss their first, second, third, fourth, *802ninth and tenth affirmative defenses. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated February 28, 1990, as, upon reargument, adhered to so much of the original determination as dismissed the aforementioned defenses (CPLR 5517 [b]).

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated December 20, 1988, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated February 28, 1990, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated February 28, 1990, is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

We discern no impropriety in the Supreme Court’s decision to strike the first and fourth affirmative defenses, which allege, respectively, set-off and double recovery, from the second third-party defendant’s answer, as they are not viable defenses to this second third-party action for indemnification. We note that such defenses may, however, be raised by the second third-party defendant in the context of the main action *(see,*CPLR 1008; *see also, Plath v Justus,*28 NY2d 16, 23).

The affirmative defenses of lack of standing and nonentitlement to indemnification as a matter of law, the ninth and tenth such defenses, were also properly stricken as those affirmative defenses merely pleaded conclusions of law without supporting facts *(see, Glenesk v Guidance Realty Corp.,*36 AD2d 852, 853). In any event, those affirmative defenses are lacking in merit under the circumstances of this case.

Finally, the affirmative defenses of settlement and release, the second and third affirmative defenses, are not available in the context of an indemnification action, and, therefore, were also properly dismissed *(see,*General Obligations Law § 15-108; *Riviello v Waldron, 47*NY2d 297, 305-307). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Fiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.
# L_2006247EN.01002001.xml

| 9.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 247/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 247/20

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1336/2006

of 8 September 2006

amending the rates of refunds applicable to certain products from the sugar sector exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the market in the sugar sector (1), and in particular Article 33(2)(a) and (4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The rates of the refunds applicable from 1 September 2006 to the products listed in the Annex, exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, were fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1303/2006 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The rates of the refunds applicable from 1 September 2006 to the products listed in the Annex, exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, were fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1303/2006 (2).

| (2) | It follows from applying the rules and criteria contained in Regulation (EC) No 1303/2006 to the information at present available to the Commission that the export refunds at present applicable should be altered as shown in the Annex hereto, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

It follows from applying the rules and criteria contained in Regulation (EC) No 1303/2006 to the information at present available to the Commission that the export refunds at present applicable should be altered as shown in the Annex hereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The rates of refund fixed by Regulation (EC) No 1303/2006 are hereby altered as shown in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 9 September 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 8 September 2006.

For the Commission

Günter VERHEUGEN

Vice-President

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 25.

2

---

ANNEX

Rates of refunds applicable from 9 September 2006 to certain products from the sugar sector exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty (1)

| CN code | Description | Rate of refund in EUR/100 kg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| In case of advance fixing of refunds | Other |
| 1701 99 10 | White sugar | 28,42 | 28,42 |

CN code

Description

Rate of refund in EUR/100 kg

In case of advance fixing of refunds

Other

1701 99 10

White sugar

28,42

28,42

---

(1)  The rates set out in this Annex are not applicable to exports to Bulgaria, with effect from 1 October 2004, to Romania with effect from 1 December 2005, and to the goods listed in Tables I and II to Protocol No 2 to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation of 22 July 1972 exported to the Swiss Confederation or to the Principality of Liechtenstein with effect from 1 February 2005.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                      5
<LEGEND>
                                               World Airways FDS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000949240
<NAME>                                         World Airways, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollar

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.0
<CASH>                                         11,725
<SECURITIES>                                   681
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11,225
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,848
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               30,278
<PP&E>                                         62,106
<DEPRECIATION>                                 38,306
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 109,736
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          55,175
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       12
<OTHER-SE>                                     (29,850)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   109,736
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               263,998
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  274,247
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (3,404)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (6,299)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,653)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (13,653)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                6,030
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,623)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (1.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.14)


</TABLE>
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2036 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 4-Hexylresorcinol. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. MENENDEZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 4- 

Hexylresorcinol. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 4-HEXYLRESORCINOL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.29.07 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 4-Hexylresorcinol) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to goods entered, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2036 IS

1 or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 21

- 1133 V

UNPUBLISHED

ROMAN GELEVAN

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: February 16, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain

- Barre Syndrome (GBS)

John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX , for Petitioner.

Kimberly Shubert Davey , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On March 29, 2021

, Roman Gelevan filed a petition for compensation under the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq. 2 (the

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain

- Barre syndrome ( “ GBS ” ) as a

result of an influenza ( “ flu ” ) vaccine administered on November 4, 2019 . Petition at 1

. Petitioner further alleges that he received the vaccine in the United States , that his

symptoms have continued f or m ore than six months , and that he has not received

compensation in the form of an award or settlement for his injuries . Petition at 1, 10

. T he

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

On February 15, 2022

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

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

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

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

- Government Act

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government

Services). This means the R uling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that

the identified material fits within this definition, I wil l redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease

of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. §

300aa (2012 ).2 1. Specifically, R espondent has reviewed the petitioner and medical records , and has

concluded that Pe titioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table

and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation for flu

- vaccine related GBS

. Id. at 6

.

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

P etitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
****Exhibit 32.1****

 

****Certification****

****Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350****

 

Pursuantto U.S.C. Section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code),each of the undersigned officers of Argyle Security, Inc. (the “Company”),does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 ofthe Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained inthe Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   |              |                        |
|--------|-------------------|-----------------------------|
| Dated: | May 20, 2008 | /s/ Bob  Marbut        |
|   |              | Name:                       |   |
|   |              | Title:                      | Co-Chief Executive Officer |
|   |              |                        |
|   |              |                        |
| Dated: | May 20, 2008 | /s/ Ron  Chaimovski    |
|   |              | Name:                       | Ron Chaimovski |
|   |              | Title:                      | Co-Chief Executive Officer |
|   |              |                        |   |
|   |              |                        |   |
| Dated: | May 20, 2008 | /s/ Donald  F. Neville |
|   |              | Name:                       | Donald F. Neville |
|   |              | Title:                      | Chief Financial Officer |
|        |                   |                             |  |  |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2010 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2010

             To suspend temporarily the duty on Daminozide.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 28, 2009

 Mr. Chambliss introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To suspend temporarily the duty on Daminozide.

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

SECTION 1. DAMINOZIDE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Daminozide (N-      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        (dimethylamino)                                                    31/2011.......
                        succinamic acid
                        (CAS No. 1596-84-
                        5) (provided for
                        in subheading
                        3808.93.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1807 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on hexythiazox technical. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 20, 2009 

Mr. KYL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on hexythiazox 

technical. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HEXYTHIAZOX TECHNICAL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.12.08 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 hexythiazox technical) is amended by striking the date in 

7 the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1807 IS

1 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2051 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow refunds of Federal 

motor fuel excise taxes on fuels used in mobile mammography vehicles. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. VITTER (for himself and Mr. COCHRAN) 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 allow refunds of Federal motor fuel excise taxes on fuels used 

in mobile mammography vehicles. 

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 ‘‘Mobile Mammography 

5 Promotion Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFUNDS OF FEDERAL MOTOR FUEL EXCISE TAXES 

7 FOR FUEL USED IN MOBILE MAMMOGRAPHY 

8 VEHICLES. 

9 (a) REFUNDS.—Section 6427 of the Internal Rev10 enue Code of 1986 (relating to fuels not used for taxable 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2051 IS

1 purposes) is amended by inserting after subsection (f) the 

2 following new subsection: 

3 ‘‘(g) FUELS USED IN MOBILE MAMMOGRAPHY VEHI4 CLES.—Except as provided in subsection (k), if any fuel 

5 on which tax was imposed by section 4041 or 4081 is used 

6 in any highway vehicle designed exclusively to provide mo7 bile mammography services to patients within such vehi8 cle, the Secretary shall pay (without interest) to the ulti9 mate purchaser of such fuel an amount equal to the aggre10 gate amount of the tax imposed on such fuel.’’. 

11 (b) EXEMPTION FROM RETAIL TAX.—Section 4041 

12 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the fol13 lowing new subsection: 

14 ‘‘(n) FUELS USED IN MOBILE MAMMOGRAPHY VEHI15 CLES.—No tax shall be imposed under this section on any 

16 liquid sold for use in, or used in, any highway vehicle de17 signed exclusively to provide mobile mammography serv18 ices to patients within such vehicle.’’. 

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

20 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

21 of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50921 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus VICTOR GONZALEZ-PINALES, also known as Sergio Morales-Penales, also known as Victor Bernal, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-02-CR-330-ALL-DB

-------------------- February 20, 2003
Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Victor Gonzalez-Pinales appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Gonzalez-Pinales complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He arguesNo. 02-50921 -2- that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Alternatively, Gonzalez-Pinales contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence was an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Gonzalez-Pinales acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.