alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States 

Office of 

Personnel Management 

The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency

Benefits Administration Letter 

Number: 07- 103 Date: July 2, 2007 

Subject: Hatch v OPM: Allowing Full-Time Credit for Employees on Workers 

Compensation Who Work Part-Time but Have a Full-Time Appointment 

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is now changing the way we credit service for 

employees on Workers Compensation (OWCP) who work part-time but have a full-time 

appointment. Specifically, employees who were given a full-time appointment, but as a result of 

being in receipt of OWCP worked only part of the day and used leave without pay (LWOP) for 

part of the day, will now be credited as full-time. 

In the case of Hatch v. Office of Personnel Management 100 M.S.P.R. 204 (2005), the Merit 

Systems Protection Board (MSPB) ruled that the annuitant should have been treated as a fulltime employee for retirement purposes for the period of time that he worked four hours a day and 

received OWCP benefits for the other four hours while in a LWOP status. 

OPM’s interpretation of 5 USC 8332 (f) and 5 CFR 831.703 (b) has been that these employees 

are not entitled to full-time credit for time worked when they work, for example, four hours a 

day and received OWCP benefits for the other four hours. Their service was computed using 

part-time rules. However, in an appeal by David Hatch to MSPB, the Board invalidated OPM’s 

interpretations and ruled that full-time credit should be allowed since the employee was given a 

full-time appointment and properly used LWOP under 5 USC 8332. Because the language of 

the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) statute, 5 USC 8411(d), is virtually the same 

as the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) provision, we will interpret it the same way as 

the Board interpreted 5 USC 8332(f). Therefore, the Hatch decision is extended to cover FERS 

cases. 

Employees with a full-time appointment and in receipt of OWCP benefits who works part of the 

day and are on approved LWOP for part of the day will now be given full-time credit. However, 

if an employee are not under a full-time appointment (e.g., part-time flexible or limited tour), the 

usual part-time rules apply. Also the MSPB decision does not apply to reemployed annuitants. 

It is not possible for OPM to identify every annuitant who fits the Hatch profile with part-time 

service in their annuity computation that was processed before the Hatch litigation began. 
Therefore, we ask that you review your payroll files, as well as any other records you retain, and 

send us a list of the names, social security numbers, and dates of birth, of current employees 

whose retirements are pending who may be affected by this decision. The list should include 

those who may have recently retired, and those former employees, you are aware of, who may 

fall into the Hatch category. Your correspondence may be sent to Benefit Officers Training and 

Development Group, 1900 E Street, NW, Room 4351, Washington, DC 200415.

 

 Robert F. Danbeck 

 Associate Director 

 for Human Resources Produce and Services Division
#### Ruth L. Sachs, Plaintiff, *v.*David H. Sachs, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Onondaga County,

January 5, 1958.

*Sydney G. Blumberg*for defendant.

*Victor Levine*for plaintiff.

Henry A. Hudson, J.

This is a motion made by the defendant to vacate the notice of examination before trial of defendant herein on the ground that the information sought herein by such examination is neither material nor necessary for the prosecution of the instant action; that the same is contrary to public policy and obviously intended for improper and ulterior motives; that in effect plaintiff seeks to cross-examine the defendant in advance of trial concerning the evidence to be produced by defendant in support of his defense; that there is no sanction in law allowing examinations of such scope and character and that the matters to be covered by such testimony are immaterial to the issues to be herein determined and are intended solely to harass the defendant.

*645The plaintiff urges that such information is a necessary and material part of her proof upon the trial. *(Lirmekin*v. *Linnekin,*96 Mise. 56; *Altman*v. *Altman,*160 Misc. 600; *Buckley*v. *Buckley,*206 Misc. 981.)

From a reading of the complaint, answering affidavit and reply to the counterclaim it is clear that the gravamen of the plaintiff’s cause of action is insufficient support and the husband’s finances, income and assets are part and parcel of her case in chief. *(Buckley*v. *Buckley, supra,*p. 983.) This court has heretofore held in *Stitt*v. *Stitt*(2 Misc 2d 655) that a wife is entitled to an examination of a husband as to material matters relating to his income and assets in a separation action. It is still of the same opinion. The circumstances are no different in the motion here under consideration and as stated in *Stitt*v. *Stitt (supra,*p. 655): “With the extension of the use of

examinations before trial this rule has been modified so as to permit in matrimonial actions an examination of a husband as to matters relating to his income and assets.”

The plaintiff may examine the defendant as to the extent of his income during 1957 and he shall produce his personal books and records having to do with his income for the year 1957. The plaintiff may also examine the defendant as to any real and personal property owned by him during the year 1957. This should be sufficient to enable her to properly prepare for the trial of the action. The exercise of discretion by the court in such a case is not prohibited.

The plaintiff is not entitled to examine the defendant as to any of the other items as set forth in the notice other than as above allowed.

The motion of the defendant is denied, with $10 costs to abide the event, and an order may be submitted authorizing plaintiff’s examination of the defendant to the extent herein provided.
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 12637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05161]

[[Page 12637]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0642; FRL-9943-42-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
New Mexico; and Albuquerque/Bernalillo County; Revisions To Establish 
Small Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance 
Assistance Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve revisions to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 
both the State and Albuquerque/Bernalillo County. These proposed 
revisions establish Small Business Stationary Assistance Source 
Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Programs. The EPA is 
proposing to approve these revisions pursuant to sections 110 and 
507(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before April 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by following the detailed 
instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located 
in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Walser, (214) 665-7128, 
walser.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Rules and Regulations section of this 
Federal Register, the EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a 
direct rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a 
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A 
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final 
rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this 
action, no further activity is contemplated. If the EPA receives 
relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and 
all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final 
rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second 
comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action 
should do so at this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is 
located in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: February 24, 2016.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2016-05161 Filed 3-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 18

- 00 177

- C V



### ____________________

IN THE INTEREST OF B.S.

________________________________________ _______________ ______________

On A ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. 18

- 9467

________________________________________ ________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appellant, B.S. , filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is

voluntarily made by the appellant prior to any decision of this Court. See Tex. R.

App. P. 42.1(a)(1). No other party filed a notice of appeal. We grant the motion and

dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

________________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON

Justice2

Submitted on May 23, 2018

Opinion Delivered May 24, 2018

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
# Official Journal C 238A/3 Oc

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 238A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 493 October 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 238A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 493 October 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Notices |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 238A/1 | European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Publication of a vacancy for the posts of Director ‘Investigations and Operations II’ (OLAF.B) (AD 14 — Ref. COM/2006/10031) and Director ‘Operation and Policy Support’ (OLAF.C) (AD 14 — Ref. COM/2006/10032) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Notices

Commission

2006/C 238A/1

European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Publication of a vacancy for the posts of Director ‘Investigations and Operations II’ (OLAF.B) (AD 14 — Ref. COM/2006/10031) and Director ‘Operation and Policy Support’ (OLAF.C) (AD 14 — Ref. COM/2006/10032)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Jason
Kulas, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the
period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2012-4 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed
by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports,
the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance
with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been
disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the
following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association.



/s/ Jason KulasName:

Jason KulasTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerDate:

September 20, 2013
#### ARIAS v. STATE.

No. 18212.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 15, 1936.

Geo. H. Gilpin and Chas. D. Bates, Jr., both of San Antonio, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*436CHRISTIAN, ‘Judge.

The offense is robbery; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for five years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
United States 

Office of 

Personnel Management 

The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency

Benefits Administration Letter 

Number: 04-801 Date: February 17, 2004 

Subject: The Federal Flexible Spending Account (FSA) Program: 

 2004 Administrative Fees

Recently, Director Kay Coles James sought input from Federal agencies through the Chief 

Human Capital Officer (CHCO) community on several proposed changes to the Federal FSA 

Program (FSAFEDS). We wanted to make sure that you were aware of the Director’s final 

decisions on these changes. 

After carefully considering feedback from agency CHCOs as well as other stakeholders, Director 

James made the final determination to: 

 increase the amount that participants could elect for a health care flexible spending account 

(HCFSA) from $3,000 to $4,000, and 

 to extend the FSAFEDS Open Season an additional week, to allow Federal workers more 

time to consider whether and how much to elect of their hard-earned dollars. 

In addition, agency CHCOs agreed that an increase in fees is warranted, since coverage for overthe-counter (OTC) medicines and products began January 1, 2004. For the 2004 Plan Year, the 

fee for a HCFSA will be $7.50 per participant per month. The Dependent Care Flexible 

Spending Account fee remains the same, at one and a half percent (1.5%) of the elected amount. 

 The $3.50 HCFSA increase is an estimate that accounts for the additional administrative costs 

and risk of overpayments associated with coverage of OTC medicines and products. This 

additional amount will be set aside in a reserve fund, and accounted for separately. It may be 

used only with approval from the Office of Personnel Management, and will be adjusted – up or 

down – in future years based on actual experience and review by the Director of OPM. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Public Law 108-136, signed on 

November 24, 2003, requires all Executive Branch agencies, as well as other employing entities 

of the Government which provide the FSAFEDS program to its employees, to cover the 

administrative fee(s) on behalf of their employees. Our Actuaries Group performed an analysis 

that shows agencies will continue to accrue more in savings than they spend in fees. If you’d 

like more information on that analysis, or how many of your employees have enrolled in 

FSAFEDS for 2004, please send an email to FSA@opm.gov. 

 Frank D. Titus

 Assistant Director

 for Insurance Services
The intent of this diagram is to provide 

you with a general understanding of 

how the Federal Employees Health 

Benefits (FEHB) Program, the Federal 

Employees Dental and Vision Insurance 

Program (FEDVIP) and the Federal 

Flexible Spending Account Program 

(FSAFEDS) work together. For specific 

information on each Program, visit 

www.opm.gov/insure. 

Circle ‘Round Your Benefits
 

How to Get the Most Value from the Programs 


FEHB 

Comprehensive medical insurance 

Dental benefits may be included 

Vision benefits may be included 

FEHB and FSA 

Save money on eligible out-of-pocket 

expenses. When you have FEHB and an 

FSA, you can use money in your FSA 

to pay for your eligible FEHB 

out-of-pocket expenses (such as 

copayments and coinsurance) 

and qualified medical costs 

and health care expenses 

that your FEHB may 

not cover (such as 

chiropractic or 

hearing 

aids). 

FEHB and FEDVIP 

Lower your out-of-pocket costs on 

dental and vision expenses with FEDVIP 

 coverage in addition to FEHB 

coverage. Your FEHB plan will be 

 the first payer for any 

dental and/or vision benefit 

payments they may 

also cover. FEHB, FEDVIP, and FSA 

Save money on eligible out-of-pocket dental and vision 

expenses. When you have FEHB, FEDVIP, and an FSA, your 

FEHB plan will be the first payer of any benefit payments. 

You can use your FSA to pay for any eligible out-of-pocket 

expenses not covered by your FEHB or FEDVIP plan. 

FSA and FEDVIP 

Save money on eligible out-of-pocket dental and vision

 expenses after FEDVIP payments. When you have an 

FSA and FEDVIP, you can use money in your FSA 

to pay for your eligible FEDVIP out-of-pocket 

expenses (such as copayments and 

coinsurance) and eligible expenses 

that your FEDVIP plan 

may not cover. 

FSAFEDS 

Save money using tax-free 

dollars. You can put aside $100

to $2550 in pre-tax dollars per 

year to pay for eligible health care 

services and items for you and 

your family that are not paid 

by your health, dental, or 

vision insurance. 

*Information on a

Dependent Care FSA is at 

www.FSAFEDS.com 

FEDVIP

 Dental - comprehensive 

dental insurance (such as free 

 semi-annual cleanings),

 and/or 

Vision - comprehensive vision 

insurance (such as yearly 

eye exam) 

July 2015
Appendix B - Examples of Acceptable Electronic/

Digital Signatures

Example #1 

Electronic Signatures on documents submitted by agencies: 

Example #2 

Forms signed using a verifiable digital signing certificates (ex. Personal 

Identity Verification (PIV), Common Access Cards (CAC), other digital 

certificate technologies): 
Example #3

Electronic Signatures through a third-party digital certificate-base signing 

software:
#### WILKINSON v. STATE.

No. 18768.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 3, 1937.

G. V. Pardue, of Lubbock, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for the unlawful possession of whisky for the purpose of sale in a dry territory; penalty assessed at a fine of $100 and confinement in the county jail for thirty days.

The information in the present instance contains the following averment: “After the qualified voters of said county had at a legal election held for that purpose in accordance with law determined that the possession for' purpose of sale of the liquor, as above described, should be prohibited in said county by law, contrary to the statutes in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.”

There is an absence of an averment that the commissioners’ court of the county had canvassed the election returns and declared the result, and that the result was published as required by law in force at the time of the election. See Kelly v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 98 S.W.(2d) 998; Brooks v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 98 S.W.(2d) 999. See, also, Privitt v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 98 S.W.(2d) 204.

For the reason stated, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of MAP VII Acquisition, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, I.
      Steven Edelson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1)
      The
      report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




November
                13, 2007
            /s/
                I. Steven EdelsonI.
                Steven EdelsonPrincipal
                Executive Officer
#### Austin, Nichols *&*Co., Inc., Respondent, *v.*Collingwood Chestnut Bar Corp., Defendant, and Sadie R. Pare et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

January 23, 1958.

*484
      *Max Epstein*for appellants.

*Herbert Carr*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The papers sufficiently raise questions of fact as to notice of presentment, dishonor and protest and timeliness thereof, which should be passed upon by trial rather than determined upon a motion for summary judgment. Moreover, failure to give notice of dishonor and protest for nonpayment to the indorsers is not excused by reason of the fact that they were officers of the corporate maker of the dishonored note. They are entitled to the statutory notice when they are sought to be held secondarily liable *(Goldstein*v. *Brastone Corp.,*254 App. Div. 288, affd. 279 N. Y. 775; *Shenkin*v. *Grant,*3 Misc 2d 333).

The judgment and order should be reversed, with $10 costs to appellants, and motion denied.

Hecht, J. P., Aubelio and Tilzer, J.J., concur.

Judgment and order reversed, etc.
Civil Service Federal Employees Federal Employees Federal Employees

Retirement Group Life Health Benefits Retirement

System Insurance Program System

United States

Office of

Personnel Management

The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency

Retirement and Insurance Service

 Financial Management Letter

 

Number: F-99-07 Date: August 13, 1999

Subject: Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance: Option C and Portability Changes

This letter provides for your information additional changes to Federal Employees Group Life

Insurance (FEGLI) information previously issued regarding Option C and the Portability Notice

for Option B. Attached is Benefits Administration Letter (BAL) 99-212, dated July 30, 1999,

which updates information that was provided in two BALs released earlier this year, (i.e., BAL

99-203 and BAL 99-210).

If you or your staff have any questions, please contact us on (202) 606-0606, or send an email to

finance@opm.gov. 

Robert A. Yuran, Chief

Financial Policy Staff

Retirement and Insurance Service

Attachment