alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DLA COLUMBUS AND AFGE LOCAL 1148

LOCAL AGREEMENT

Article 21- Overtime Assignments

SECTION 1. The parties agree that where overtime work can be directly identified
as requiring specific skills or belonging to the job duties of an employee in a specific
technical/administrative position, the overtime may be granted directly to the
employee. Management maintains the right to determine the qualifications needed to
perform the work. Upon request, management will explain the qualifications required
for the overtime. If management does not exercise its discretion to directly assign an
employee overtime work using this procedure, it will follow the procedures in Section 2.

SECTION 2. For positions for which job duties and assignments are determined to be
interchangeable among qualified employees, the parties agree that overtime will be
distributed among employees within the same job classification and grade and/or within
the same basic work/organization unit, as appropriate. Insuch instances where overtime
is offered and there are more volunteers than overtime hours available, overtime will be
offered toemployees in accordance with an overtime roster as follows:

A. A posted overtime roster will be maintained which will be composed of the
employees of the same job classification and grade and/or in the same basic
work/organizational unit, whichever is applicable. Names on the roster will be ranked
from top to bottom by employee service computation date, with the most senior
names first. Any employee turing down overtime will be bypassed. Management
reserves the discretion to pass over any employee on the roster whose work
performance is not currently meeting performance standards at the fully successful
level, regardless of the rating of record on file.

B. If anemployee has been passed over for overtime, the supervisor will explain
the basis for omission from overtime. If an employee who has been passed over for
overtime improves his/her performance to a satisfactory level, he/she will promptly be
eligible for overtime in accordance with the procedure stated above.

C. Inthe event time is limited or an insufficient number of volunteers are
obtained, the Employer will exercise its prerogative to assign overtime. However, an
employee on excused leave, or his/her regular day off will maintain his/her position on

the list.

DS mh


SECTION 3. The fact an employee used annual leave or sick leave during a pay
period will not be sufficient cause to exclude him/her from working overtime

during that same pay period.

FOR THE UNION

C CBO per

ROBIN MENEFEE
Chief Negotiator for Local 1148

(a/1/78

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Qhuuth £ hoe

DON SCHULZE
Chief Negotiator for DSCC Columbus

12|7/23

Date

Date
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2753 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2753

  To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to require certain consumer 
 reporting agencies to include a credit score when providing consumers 
                  with a free annual consumer report.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 15, 2019

 Mrs. Beatty introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to require certain consumer 
 reporting agencies to include a credit score when providing consumers 
                  with a free annual consumer report.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Free Credit Score Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF CREDIT SCORE WITH FREE ANNUAL REPORT.

    The Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) is amended--
            (1) in section 609(a)(1)(B), by inserting before the period 
        the following: ``, except as required under section 
        612(a)(1)(D)''; and
            (2) in section 612(a)(1), by adding at the end the 
        following:
                    ``(D) Inclusion of credit score.--
                            ``(i) In general.--A consumer reporting 
                        agency that provides a consumer report to a 
                        consumer pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall 
                        also provide such consumer with--
                                    ``(I) an explanation of how credit 
                                scores are calculated, including 
                                factors considered in credit scoring 
                                calculations; and
                                    ``(II) a credit score (as defined 
                                under section 609(f)).
                            ``(ii) Rulemaking.--The Bureau shall issue 
                        rules--
                                    ``(I) to provide minimum criteria 
                                for explanations described under clause 
                                (i)(I); and
                                    ``(II) to require a credit score 
                                provided by a consumer reporting agency 
                                pursuant to clause (i) to be similar to 
                                the types of credit scores most 
                                commonly used by creditors.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
*_____________________ AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                         210,931
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,032,172
<ALLOWANCES>                                   189,556
<INVENTORY>                                  9,546,674
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,997,130
<PP&E>                                       1,375,672
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,033,208
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,339,594
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,243,916
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,085,848
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,953,530
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,339,594
<SALES>                                     16,671,385
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,671,385
<CGS>                                        6,724,539
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,033,930
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,553,635
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                66,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              96,427
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,921,393
<INCOME-TAX>                                   623,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,297,493
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,297,493
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this annual report of Espey Mfg. & Electronics Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), I, Howard
Pinsley, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 this report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

Date: September 14, 2004

                                            /s/ Howard Pinsley
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            Howard Pinsley
                                            President and
                                            Chief Executive Officer


55
No. 10-7418.

#### Rodney Bernard Barno, Petitioner v. Stuart Ryan, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 1153, 131 S. Ct. 942,

178 L. Ed. 2d 780,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 174.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 399 Fed. Appx. 272.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-K OF THE ELDER-BEERMAN STORES CORP. FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY
31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.

THIS SCHEDULE SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE FILED FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 11 OF THE
SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, SECTION 18 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND
SECTION 323 OF THE TRUST INDENTURE ACT OF 1939, OR OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THE
LIABILITIES OF SUCH SECTIONS, NOR SHALL IT BE DEEMED A PART OF ANY REGISTRATION
STATEMENT TO WHICH IT RELATES.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,497
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  140,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,177
<INVENTORY>                                    137,507
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               293,355
<PP&E>                                         150,236
<DEPRECIATION>                                  86,980
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 371,365
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           79,296
<BONDS>                                        142,024
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       199,351
<OTHER-SE>                                    (53,840)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   371,365
<SALES>                                        581,372
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               607,946
<CGS>                                          423,542
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  423,542
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 8,636
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,084
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,931
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (7,412)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,199)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   7,378
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (28,131)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (28,952)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (23.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (23.24)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit10.29.1**APPENDIX X**   Agency Code 12000 Contract No. C020429Period 10/1/05 – 9/30/08 Funding Amount for Period Based on approved capitation ratesThis is an AGREEMENT between THE STATE OF NEW YORK, acting by and through The New YorkState Department of Health, having its principal office at Corning Tower, Room 2001,Empire State Plaza, Albany NY 12237, (hereinafter referred to as the STATE), andCarePlus, LLC, (hereinafter referred to as the CONTRACTOR), to modify Contract NumberC020429 by substituting the attached Appendix L “Approved Capitation Payment Rates.” Theeffective date of these modifications is October 1, 2005.All other provisions of said AGREEMENT shall remain in full force and effect.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the dates appearingunder their signatures.             CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE   STATE AGENCY SIGNATURE               By: /s/ Nasry Michelen   By:                     Nasry Michelen                                      Printed Name     Printed Name                 Title: Chief Executive Officer   Title:                                Date: 3/12/06   Date:                                      State Agency Certification.:      In addition to the acceptance of this contract,I also certify that original copies of thissignature page will be attached to all otherexact copies of this contract.       STATE OF NEW YORK  )      )  SS.:County of New York  )   On the 13TH day of March 2006, before me personally appearedNasry Michelen, to me known, who being by me duly sworn, did deposeand say that he/she resides at 11 Wells Ave., Goton on Hudson, NY 10520 that he/sheis the CEO of Careplus Health Plan LLc, thecorporation described herein which executed the foregoing instrument; and that he/shesigned his/her name thereto by order of the board of directors of said corporation.         (Notary)     [ILLEGIBLE]     /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]           STATE COMPTROLLER’S SIGNATURE   Title:                          Date:             
 

 
**APPENDIX L****Approved Capitation Payment Rates****APPENDIX L**
No. 10-5089.

#### Mark Vannausdle, Petitioner v. Pierce County Department of Assigned Counsel, et al.

562 U.S. 1088, 131 S. Ct. 695,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9107.

178 L. Ed. 2d 524,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 903, 131 S. Ct. 239, 178 L. Ed. 2d 159, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6257.
No. 10-138.

#### Victor Madeja, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania.

562 U.S. 1088, 131 S. Ct. 694,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9301.

178 L. Ed. 2d 524,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 895, 131 S. Ct. 319, 178 L. Ed. 2d 145, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6243.
##### 



(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 R.H. Donnelley
Corporation as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
 /s/ David C. Swanson
    
    /s/ Steven M. BlondyDavid C. Swanson
    
    Steven M. BlondyChief Executive Officer and Director
    
    Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial OfficerMarch 15, 2006
    
    March 15, 2006
#### *Anderson, Respondent, v. Anderson et al., Petitioners,*

No. 91865-1.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 70814-7-I, March 9, 2015, 186 Wn. App. 1017. *Denied*November 4, 2015.
# C_2016211EN.01005102.xml

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/51

---

Order of the General Court of 21 April 2016 — Inclusion Alliance for Europe v Commission

(Case T-539/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Seventh framework programme for research and technological development including demonstration activities (2007-2013) - MARE, Senior and ECRN projects - Recovery of a share of the financial contribution paid - Enforcement decision - Nature of the pleas relied on - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2016/C 211/65)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: S. Famiani, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Di Paolo and F. Moro, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Gullo, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 4693 final of 17 July 2013 concerning the recovery of a sum of EUR 212 411,89, plus interest, owed by the applicant in the context of the MARE, Senior and ECRN projects.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.

---
No. 10-6758.

#### Teresa Ann Waters, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 1093, 131 S. Ct. 797,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9563.

178 L. Ed. 2d 534,

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
----

|   |                                                      |       |                    |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|------------|-------------------------|
| (1)    | U.S. Subsidiary Wholly Owned by LaserCard Corporation:    |       |
|   |                                                      |       |                    |
|   | Name of Subsidiary                                        |       | State of Incorporation  |
|   |                                                      |       |                    |
|   | LaserCard Corporation                                     | California |
|   |                                                      |       |                    |
| (2)    | Foreign Subsidiary Wholly Owned by LaserCard Corporation: |       |
|   |                                                      |       |                    |
|   | Name of Subsidiary                                        |       | Nation of Incorporation |
|   |                                                      |       |                    |
|   | Challenge Card Design Plastikkarten GmbH                  | Germany    |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Madison, Appellant.

[59 NYS3d 755]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), dated April 10, 2013, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the defendant is designated a level two sexually violent offender.

The defendant’s contention that he should not have been assessed points under risk factor 11 is not preserved for appellate review *(see People v Jones,*130 AD3d 601 [2015]). However, we reach it in the interest of justice *(see People v Souverain,*137 AD3d 765, 766 [2016]).

“In order to demonstrate that an offender was ‘abusing [drugs or] alcohol at the time of the offense,’ the People must show by clear and convincing evidence that the offender used [drugs or] alcohol in excess either at the time of the crime or repeatedly in the past” *(People v Palmer,*20 NY3d 373, 378 *738[2013], quoting Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 15 [2006]). Here, although the People offered evidence that the defendant used drugs after the time of the offense, the People failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant used alcohol or drugs in excess either at the time of the offense or repeatedly in the past *(see People v Palmer,*20 NY3d at 378; *People v Ceja,*143 AD3d 685, 686 [2016]; *People v Rohoman,*121 AD3d 876, 877 [2014]; *People v Coger,*108 AD3d 1234, 1235 [2013]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have assessed the defendant 15 points under risk factor 11.

After subtracting the 15 points improperly assessed under risk factor 11, the defendant’s point total on the risk assessment instrument is 105, within the range for a level two sex offender *(see People v Jordan,*145 AD3d 691, 693 [2016]). Moreover, although a court may depart from the presumptive risk level where the circumstances warrant that departure *(see People v Wyatt,*89 AD3d 112, 119 [2011]), here, the defendant failed to establish his entitlement to a downward departure to risk level one *(cf. People v Abdullah,*31 AD3d 515, 516 [2006]). Accordingly, we reverse the order appealed from and designate the defendant a level two sexually violent offender.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.
# Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA

- 2015

- 4815

Directorate Identifier: 2015NM112AD

AOT A57L005

- 14

--- 7/15/2014

AOT A57L005

- 14, R01

--- 8/20/2014

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the

Supplemental AD Docket



### MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
Uno no puede comprarse 

un cerebro nuevo.

El cerebro humano es el último órgano en desarrollarse por completo, alrededor de 

los 25 años de edad. La nicotina en los cigarrillos electrónicos (e-cigarrillos) puede 

dañar el desarrollo del cerebro y provocar la adicción tanto en jóvenes como en 

adultos jóvenes. Protejamos a nuestros hijos.

Lea sobre cómo hacerlo en CDC.gov/e-cigarrillos

C7

D7

E7

C6

D6

E6

C5

D5

E5

U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention