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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

          - RIN 3145-AA58

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice announcing updated penalty inflation adjustments for civil monetary penalties for 2024.

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF or Foundation) is providing notice of its adjusted maximum civil monetary penalties, effective January 15, 2024. These adjustments are required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bijan Gilanshah, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. Telephone: 703-292-5055.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On June 27, 2016, NSF published an interim final rule amending its regulations to adjust, for inflation, the maximum civil monetary penalties that may be imposed for violations of the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (ACA), as amended, 16 U.S.C. 2401*et seq.,*                     and the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (PFCRA), 31 U.S.C. 3801,                     *et seq.*                     These adjustments are required by the 2015 Act. The 2015 Act also requires agencies to make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. Pursuant to OMB guidance dated December 19, 2023, the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2024 is 1.03241. Accordingly, the 2024 annual inflation adjustments for the maximum penalties under the ACA are $21,022 ($20,362 × 1.03241) for violations and $35,574 ($34,457 × 1.03241) for knowing violations of the ACA. Finally, the 2024 annual inflation adjustment for the maximum penalty for violations under PFCRA is $13,946 ($13,508 × 1.03241).                

Dated: December 20, 2023.

Suzanne H. Plimpton,

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.

[FR Doc. 2023-28433 Filed 12-26-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 453 

To deem the Step 2 compliance date for standards of performance for new 

residential wood heaters, new residential hydronic heaters, and forcedair furnaces to be May 15, 2023. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 11, 2017 

Mr. PETERSON (for himself, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. SMITH of Missouri, Mr. 

LONG, Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota, Mr. EMMER, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, and 

Mr. KIND) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To deem the Step 2 compliance date for standards of performance for new residential wood heaters, new residential hydronic heaters, and forced-air furnaces to be May 

15, 2023. 

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 ‘‘Relief from New 

5 Source Performance Standards Act of 2017’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 453 IH

1 SEC. 2. STEP 2 COMPLIANCE DATE FOR STANDARDS OF 

2 PERFORMANCE FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL 

3 WOOD HEATERS, NEW RESIDENTIAL 

4 HYDRONIC HEATERS, AND FORCED-AIR FUR5 NACES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Step 2 compliance date (as 

7 such term is used in the final rule entitled ‘‘Standards 

8 of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New 

9 Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces’’ 

10 published at 80 Fed. Reg. 13672 (March 16, 2015)) is 

11 deemed to be May 15, 2023 

12 (b) CONFORMING CHANGES.—Not later than 60 days 

13 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator 

14 of the Environmental Protection Agency shall make such 

15 technical and conforming changes to rules and guidance 

16 documents as may be necessary to implement subsection 

17 (a). 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2010179EN.01003302.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2010 — Beifa Group v OHIM — Schwan-Stabilo Schwanhaüßer (Instrument for writing)

(Case T-148/08) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an instrument for writing - Earlier national figurative mark - Ground for invalidity - Use in the Community design of an earlier sign the holder of which has the right to prohibit such use - Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Request for proof of genuine use of the earlier mark made for the first time before the Board of Appeal)

(2010/C 179/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Beifa Group Co. Ltd (Ningbo, Zhejiang, China) (represented by: R. Davis, Barrister, and N. Cordell, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Schwan-Stabilo Schwanhaüßer GmbH & Co. KG (Heroldsberg, Germany) (represented by: U. Blumenröder and H. Gauß, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2008 (Case R 1352/2006-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Schwan-Stabilo Schwanhaüßer GmbH & Co. KG and Ningo Beifa Group Co., Ltd in respect of a Community design.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 31 January 2008 (Case R 1352/2006-3); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 31 January 2008 (Case R 1352/2006-3);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Beifa Group Co. Ltd, and orders Schwan Stabilo Schwanhaüßer GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Beifa Group Co. Ltd, and orders Schwan Stabilo Schwanhaüßer GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Johnny Dixon, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), rendered October 6, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf, People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000880114
<NAME> BELDEN & BLAKE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           6,432
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,179
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,831
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,117
<PP&E>                                         436,733
<DEPRECIATION>                                 193,550
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 291,407
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,818
<BONDS>                                        268,941
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,026
<OTHER-SE>                                    (44,865)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   291,407
<SALES>                                         27,052
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,885
<CGS>                                           12,117
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,117
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (3,382)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,286
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,864
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,120
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,744
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,744
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
H. R. 4301 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 201 Tom 

Hall Street in Fort Mill, South Carolina, as the ‘‘J. Elliott Williams Post Office 

Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. J. ELLIOTT WILLIAMS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 201 Tom Hall Street in Fort Mill, South Carolina, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘J. Elliott Williams Post 

Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘J. Elliott Williams Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  (a)
    
    The Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2009 filed on the date
hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: February 26, 2010
    By:
    /s/ C. Reynolds Thompson, IIIC. Reynolds Thompson, IIIChief Financial Officer
#### Harry A. LANGHAM, Petitioner, v. H. G. COCHRAN, Jr., Director Divisions of Corrections, Tallahassee, Florida, Respondent, Robert R. Raines, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Corespondent.

No. A-12941.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Nov. 30, 1960.

Harry A. Langham, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Owen J. Watts; Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent Robert R. Raines, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

Harry A. Langham is a prisoner in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary at McAlester, by reason of a judgment and sentence by the district court of Oklahoma County in case No. 26053, where petitioner herein was there convicted of the crime of larceny of an automobile and on November 30, *5841959 sentenced to serve five years in the .S.tate Penitentiary.

Since incarceration by reason of the 'above judgment and sentence, according to the allegations of petitioner, one H. G. Cochran, Jr., Director, Division of Corrections, Tallahassee, Florida, has placed with Robert R. Raines, Warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, a fugitive warrant by reason of an alleged escape by petitioner from a Florida road camp on July 8, 1957.

Petitioner alleges that the fugitive warrant is null and void by reason of the State of Florida having previously relinquished jurisdiction of petitioner. He states that he was, after escape from Florida, convicted of a crime at Houston, Texas, and sentenced to serve three years in the Texas State Prison at Huntsville; that the State of Florida filed a detainer and a detainer was filed from another state, which was later dismissed; that the Florida authorities were notified, but took no action to extradite petitioner. He was advised that the Florida authorities did not want him.

The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the petition for mandamus herein, directing the dismissal of the Florida fugitive warrant as being void, and for grounds states:

> “1. The judgment and sentence of the district court of Oklahoma, under which the petitioner is incarcerated, is valid and legal and the court had jurisdiction of the person and the subject matter.

> “2. This Court has no jurisdiction over H. G. Cochran, Jr., Director, Division of Corrections, Tallahassee, Florida, who filed the detainer or 'hold order’ against the petitioner.”

The motion to dismiss must be sustained, for the reasons urged by the Attorney General. When petitioner has completed his sentence at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, if he does not agree to waive extradition to Florida, the rights of the Florida authorities may be tested by way of habeas corpus, as limited by the Uniform Extradition Act, 22 O.S.1951 § 1141.1 et seq.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

NIX and BRETT, JJ., concur.
# C_2009055EN.01001601.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen, Afdeling Hasselt (Belgium) lodged on 29 December 2008 — Rijksdienst voor pensioenen v E. Brouwer

(Case C-577/08)

(2009/C 55/25)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Antwerpen, Afdeling Hasselt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rijksdienst voor pensioenen

Applicant:

Defendant: E. Brouwer

Defendant:

Question referred

Are the Royal Decrees of 1.12.1969, 18.6.1970, 8.6.1971, 14.9.1972, 31.7.1973, 12.7.1974, 13.2.1975, 28.11.1975, 26.11.1976, 26.9.1977, 31.7.1978, 31.8.1979, 2.12.1980, 13.1.1982, 14.3.1983, 11.1.1984, 30.11.1984, 24.1.1986, 30.12.1986, 6.1.1988, 2.12.1988, 30.11.1989, 10.12.1990, 1.6.1993, 8.12.1993, 19.12.1994 and 10.10.1995 enacted pursuant to Article 25 of the Royal Decree of 21 December 1967 laying down general rules for the retirement and survivor's pension for employed persons (Koninklijk Besluit tot vaststelling van het algemeen reglement betreffende het rust- en overleveringspensioen voor werknemers) — which establish lower notional and/or flat-rate daily wages for the calculation of a retirement pension for female frontier workers than for male frontier workers — in accordance with Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7/EEC (1) on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security?

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).

1

---
# C_2008171EN.01004701.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/47

---

Action brought on 16 May 2008 — Schuhpark Fascies v OHIM — Leder & Schuh (jello SCHUHPARK)

(Case T-183/08)

(2008/C 171/89)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Schuhpark Fascies GmbH (Warendorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Peter and J. Braune, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Leder & Schuh AG (Graz, Austria)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 March 2008 in appeal proceedings R 1560/2006-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 March 2008 in appeal proceedings R 1560/2006-4;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Leder & Schuh AG.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word and figurative mark ‘jello SCHUHPARK’ for goods in Classes 1, 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24-26 and 28 (Application No 1 269 372).

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Schuhpark Fascies GmbH.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The German word mark ‘Schuhpark’ for goods in Class 25 (No 1 007 149), in respect of opposition to the registration for goods in Classes 18, 21, 25 and 26.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part and application rejected in part.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the appealed decision and rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of the second sentence of Article 43(2) and Article 43(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) and breach of the second sentence of Rule 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (2) in that the applicant has sufficiently proved that the opposition mark has been used in a manner which preserves its rights.

Pleas in law:

1

2

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).

2

---
#### Samuel Schwartz, Plaintiff, *v.*Jonah Finkelstein, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

September 25, 1956.

*Abraham M. Feinstein*for plaintiff.

*Landi, Cahn & Gold*for defendant.

Benjamin Brenner, J.

This is an action brought to dissolve a partnership and for an accounting, etc. Plaintiff moves, pursuant to subdivision 6 of rule 109 of the Buies of Civil Practice, to strike out the affirmative defense and dismiss the counterclaim for insufficiency. The answer denies the existence of a partnership as alleged in the complaint. The special defense and counterclaim are based on a contract other than that claimed by plaintiff.

Both parties concede in their pleadings that they entered upon a joint venture for the purpose of conducting a machine shop; each, however, relies on different terms and dates of the alleged agreement. The complaint alleges the copartnership to have commenced on or about December 1, 1956, without execution of a written agreement. Defendant in his answer denies this and alleges in his affirmative defense and counterclaim that the subsequent agreement of February, 1957 established a copartnership at will, which provided *inter alia*for weekly salaries, amounts of contributions and division of profits or losses. Each party thus alleges that both are bound by differing agreements. It is moreover questioned whether the first was actually consummated, it being claimed by defendant that he refused to execute the prepared written agreement because the terms contained therein were not those agreed upon. Therefore it cannot be said, as plaintiff contends, that the defendant’s counterclaim would require determination of the *same facts*which would resolve the issues of the complaint.

The defendant’s claim of different contractual terms additionally entitles him to prove his cause for equitable and affirmative relief which, if proven, would also defeat plaintiff’s cause of action, for though the defendant pleads both an equitable defense and an equitable counterclaim they are distinguishable, as noted in *United States Fid. & Guar. Co.*v. *Goetz*(285 N. Y. *49974, 78), wherein the court stated: “The distinction lies in whether the facts stated in the so-called counterclaim show a need for affirmative relief for the complete protection of the defendants or if proven would merely defeat the plaintiff’s cause of action. *(Susquehanna S. S. Co.*v. *Andersen & Co.,*239 N. Y. 285 [and other cases cited].) ”

I therefore find the counterclaim proper and the affirmative defense sufficient in law upon its face. Both present issues of fact *(Levine*v. *Levy,*285 App. Div. 848). Defendant’s reference to subdivision 4 of section 109 of the Civil Practice Act has been noted, but it becomes academic in view of the decision herein.

The motion is denied. Submit order.
21810

#### Higa v. Department of Land Utilization, City and County of Honolulu

Affirmed
#### Morris and Essex Railroad Company and Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company, appellants, *v.*Newark Passenger Railway Company, respondents.

On appeal from an order of the chancellor, whose opinion is reported in *Morris and Essex Railroad Co. et al.*v. *Newark Passenger Railway Co., 6 Dick. Ch. Rep. 379.*

Per Curiam.

Order affirmed, for the reasons given by the chancellor.

*For affirmance*— The Chief-Justice, Abbett, Depue, Dixon, Garrison, Lippincott, Magie, Eeed, Van Syckel, Bogert, Brown, Sims, Smith — 13.

*For reversal*— None.