alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 44 (Monday, March 9, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9951]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4925]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 532

RIN 3206-AL74


Prevailing Rate Systems; Abolishment of Santa Clara, CA, as a 
Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Area

AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Office of Personnel Management is issuing a final 
rule to abolish the Santa Clara, California, nonappropriated fund (NAF) 
Federal Wage System (FWS) wage area and redefine Santa Clara County, 
CA, to the Monterey, CA, NAF wage area and Alameda, Contra Costa, and 
San Francisco Counties, CA, to the Solano, CA, NAF wage area. San Mateo 
County, CA, will no longer be defined to a wage area. These changes are 
necessary because the closure of the Moffett Federal Airfield Navy 
Exchange left the Santa Clara wage area without an activity having the 
capability to conduct a local wage survey.

DATES: Effective date: This regulation is effective on March 9, 2009. 
Applicability date: This regulation applies on the first day of the 
first applicable pay period beginning on or after November 15, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madeline Gonzalez, (202) 606-2838; e-
mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6818091145180d1a0e071a0509060b0d45180704010b1128071805460f071e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ccbcadb5e1bca9beaaa3bea1ada2afa9e1bca3a0a5afb58ca3bca1e2aba3ba">[email protected]</span></a>; or FAX: (202) 606-4264.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 4, 2008, the U.S. Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) issued an interim rule (73 FR 65495) to 
abolish the Santa Clara, California, nonappropriated fund (NAF) Federal 
Wage System wage area, redefine Santa Clara County, CA, to the 
Monterey, CA, NAF wage area and Alameda, Contra Costa, and San 
Francisco Counties, CA, to the Solano, CA, NAF wage area, and remove 
San Mateo County, CA, from the wage area definition. The interim rule 
had a 30-day public comment period, during which OPM received no 
comments.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that these regulations will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they 
will affect only Federal agencies and employees.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532

    Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, 
Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Kathie Ann Whipple,
Acting Director.

0
Accordingly, under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 5343, the interim rule 
published on November 4, 2008, amending 5 CFR part 532 (73 FR 65495) is 
adopted as final with no changes.

[FR Doc. E9-4925 Filed 3-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 09-8932.

#### Earl Jefferson, Petitioner v. Howard Carlton, Warden.

559 U.S. 1041, 130 S. Ct. 2071,

176 L. Ed. 2d 421,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2865.

March 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20

- 0385

_________________ JAMIE MICHAEL JOHNSON,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v. ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee. O R D E R

_________________ The record was filed for purposes of this appeal on August 21 , 2020

. Nothing further has been filed, and the opening brief is now overdue. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Appellant shall prepare, file and serve the opening brief on appeal no later than Nove mber 9 , 2020 . Failure to file the brief within that time will result in dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and without further notice. The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 7 2020

10/07/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0385
No. 09-7894.

#### Elizabeth Liggon-Redding, Petitioner v. Willingboro Township, New Jersey, et al.

559 U.S. 1117, 130 S. Ct. 2430,

176 L. Ed. 2d 943,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3784.

May 3, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 559 U.S. 945, 130 S. Ct. 1514, 176 L. Ed. 2d 123, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 1109.
No. 09-9663.

#### Miguel Vega-Colon, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1083, 130 S. Ct. 2129,

176 L. Ed. 2d 750,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3195.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5064 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to eliminate the MA Regional 

Plan Stabilization Fund and to extend health status adjustment. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 30, 2006 

Mrs. EMERSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to eliminate 

the MA Regional Plan Stabilization Fund and to extend 

health status adjustment. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF THE MA REGIONAL PLAN STA4 BILIZATION FUND. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (e) of section 1858 of 

6 the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–27a) is re7 pealed. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5064 IH 

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 1858(f)(1) 

2 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–27a(f)(1)) is amended by 

3 striking ‘‘subject to subsection (e),’’. 

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

5 this section shall take effect as if included in the enact6 ment of section 221(c) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 

7 Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 

8 108–173; 117 Stat. 2181). 

9 SEC. 2. EXTENDING APPLICATION OF BUDGET NEUTRALITY 

10 FACTOR IN REFINEMENT OF HEALTH STATUS 

11 ADJUSTMENT IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT 

12 OF PAYMENTS TO MEDICARE ADVANTAGE 

13 ORGANIZATIONS. 

14 Section 1853(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Social Security Act 

15 (42 U.S.C. 1395w–23(a)(1)(C)(ii)), as added by section 

16 5301(b)(2) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public 

17 Law 109–171), is amended— 

18 (1) in the heading, by striking ‘‘DURING PHASE19 OUT’’; 

20 (2) in the matter before subclause (I), by strik21 ing ‘‘For 2006 through 2010’’ and inserting ‘‘For 

22 years beginning with 2006’’; and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5064 IH 

1 (3) in subclause (II), by striking ‘‘only for 

2 2008, 2009, and 2010’’ and inserting ‘‘beginning 

3 with 2008’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Hewitt Associates, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that: 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                  |  |     |  |                        
|----------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 5, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Russell P. Fradin  
|                  |  |     |  | Russell P. Fradin      
|                  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Hewitt Associates, Inc. and will be retained by Hewitt
Associates, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
No. 09-9347.

#### Andre Robinson, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1058, 130 S. Ct. 2356,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3111.

176 L. Ed. 2d 577,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice So-tomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 354 Fed. Appx. 518.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6493** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DEANTE DRAKE, a/k/a Panama, a/k/a Shawn, a/k/a Papa Bear , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Clarksburg
. Irene M. Keeley , District Judge. ( 1:07

- cr - 00053

- IMK

- JES

- 1 ; 1:13

- cv - 00253

- IMK

JES )

Submitted : August 20, 2015 Decided: August 24, 2015

Before DUNCAN , KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Deante Drake , Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not bi nding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Deante Drake seeks to appe al the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion as successive, and the order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial sho wing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutio nal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Drake has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument beca use the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 09-9265.

#### Kristopher Thomas Kastner, Petitioner v. Texas, et al.

559 U.S. 1096, 130 S. Ct. 2379,

176 L. Ed. 2d 774,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3549.

April 26, 2010.

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

Same case below, 332 Fed. Appx. 980.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-11-00077- CV

Justin Was hm on, App ellant

v. Washin gton Mutual Ban k, App ellee

F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 2 O F TRAVIS CO UNTY NO. C-1 -CV- 07- 0115 90, H ONO RAB LE ERIC SH EP P ERD, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O PI N I O N Appellant Ju s t i n Washmon filed his notice of appea l in the trial court on Fe bruar y 7, 2011. On July 15, 2011, the Clerk of this Court sent notice to appellant that his brief was due on J une 30, 2011, and was overdue , and that if he failed to file a brief, this Court would dismiss his appea l for want of prosec ution. The Clerk also notified appellant that his ap p ea l woul d be dismiss ed for want of pro s ecution if he did not respond to this Court by J uly 25, 2011. To date, appellant has not responde d to this Court’s notice and has not filed a brief. Acc ording ly , we dismiss the appe al for w ant of prose cution. SeeTex. R. App. P . 42.3(b), ( c).__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore Justices Puryear , Rose and Goodwin Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: August 17, 2011

2
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4904 

To amend the Fur Product Labeling Act to require labeling of all fur 

products, regardless of value. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2006 

Mr. FERGUSON (for himself, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. PLATTS, Ms. LEE, 

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. KUCINICH, and Mr. SIMMONS) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Fur Product Labeling Act to require labeling 

of all fur products, regardless of value. 

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 ‘‘Truth in Fur Labeling 

5 Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FUR PRODUCT LABELING. 

7 Section 2(d) of the Fur Products Labeling Act (15 

8 U.S.C. 69(d)) is amended by striking ‘‘; except that such 

9 term’’ and all that follows through ‘‘contained therein’’ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4904 IH 

1 and inserting ‘‘, regardless of value, quantity imported, or 

2 expense of labeling’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
STATE EX REL. UTILITIES COMMISSION v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

271A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 15, 2019

Margaret A. Force, Teresa L. Townsend, Assistant Attorney Generals, Matthew W. Sawchak, Solicitor General, Jennifer T. Harrod, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, James W. Doggett, Deputy Solicitor General, for Stein, Josh (Attorney General).

Kiran H. Mehta, Molly Leigh McIntosh, Attorneys at Law, Charlotte, Christopher G. Browning, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Duke Energy Progress, LLC.

Matthew D. Quinn, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Sierra Club.

David T. Drooz, Staff Attorney, Lucy E. Edmondson, Staff Attorney, Raleigh, for Public Staff - N.C. Utilities Commission.

James P. West, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Fayetteville Public Works Commission.

Kyle J. Smith, Attorney at Law, for Department of Defense/Federal Executive Agencies.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of April 2019 to admit Bridget M. Lee Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of April 2019."
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Hewitt Associates, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that: 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                  |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------- |  | -----------------------
|                       |  |  | 
|Date: February 7, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ John J. Park
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                  |  | John J. Park           
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                  |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Hewitt Associates, Inc. and will be retained by Hewitt
Associates, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission as and exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
I, Nikolas Antonopoulos, Chief Executive Officer and President of Crum &Forster Holdings Corp., certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Crum & ForsterHoldings Corp.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact, or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis quarterly report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report isbeing prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterlyreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered bythis quarterly report based on such evaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that have materiallyaffected, or are likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: November 5, 2004 By: /s/  *Nikolas Antonopoulos*
#### In the Matter of Country-Wide Insurance Company, Appellant, v Wilfredo Colon, Respondent.

[720 NYS2d 71]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.H.O.), entered February 4, 2000, which, after a hearing, granted respondent’s motion to lift a temporary stay and denied the petition for a permanent stay of arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, respondent’s motion denied, the petition granted and a permanent stay of arbitration issued. Appeal from order, same court (Stanley Parness, J.), entered January 8, 1999, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic in view of the foregoing.

Respondent allegedly sustained personal injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident in September 1997 and petitioner sought to stay arbitration of respondent’s claim for uninsured motorist benefits in May 1998 on the ground that only respondent’s vehicle was involved. In August 1998, the IAS Court granted a permanent stay on respondent’s default. Thereafter, respondent moved to vacate his default on the basis of his affidavit in which he stated that the accident was caused when his vehicle was “cut off’ by another vehicle as a result of which he lost control and his vehicle left the road, striking a building. At a subsequent hearing, the investigating officer testified that there was no second vehicle involved in the accident. The uninsured motorist endorsement to respondent’s insurance policy provides for coverage for accidents caused by uninsured motor vehicles and requires physical contact between such other vehicle and either the insured or his vehicle. This endorsement mirrors the language of Insurance Law § 5217. Physical contact is a condition precedent to an arbitration based on a “hit and run” accident and the burden of proof to demonstrate physical contact is upon the insured *(Matter of Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v Shaw,*222 AD2d 581; *Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Killakey,*78 NY2d 325, 329). In the absence of any proof of physical contact between either respondent or his vehicle and the motor vehicle which respondent claims cut him off, arbitration was properly stayed. Concur — Andrias, J. P., Lerner, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.