alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009041EN.01000101.xml

| 19.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 41/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 41/1

---

Notice regarding the adaptation in line with inflation of certain amounts laid down in the Life and Non-Life Insurance Directives

(2009/C 41/01)

In accordance with Article 30 of Directive 2002/83/EC (1) concerning life assurance, the amount laid down in euro in Article 29(2) was reviewed in 2008 in order to take account of changes in the European index of consumer prices comprising all Member States as published by Eurostat. As a result of the review, the amount laid down in euro is increased from EUR 3 200 000 to EUR 3 500 000. The Commission Services have informed the European Parliament and the Council of the review and the adapted amount.

1

In accordance with Article 17a of Directive 73/239/EEC (2) on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance, as amended by Directive 2002/13/EC (3), the amounts laid down in euro in Article 16a(3) and (4) and Article 17(2) were reviewed in 2008 in order to take account of changes in the European index of consumer prices comprising all Member States as published by Eurostat. As a result of the review, the amount laid down in euro in Article 16a(3) is increased from EUR 53 100 000 to EUR 57 500 000. The amount laid down in euro in Article 16a(4) is increased from EUR 37 200 000 to EUR 40 300 000. The amounts laid down in euro in Article 17(2) are increased from EUR 2 200 000 to EUR 2 300 000 and from EUR 3 200 000 to EUR 3 500 000 respectively. The Commission Services have informed the European Parliament and the Council of the review and the adapted amounts.

2

3

---

(1)  OJ L 345, 19.12.2002, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 228, 16.8.1973, p. 3.

2

(3)  OJ L 77, 20.3.2002, p. 17.

3

---
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 729 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 16, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

AN ACT 

To help keep students safe on school-run, overnight, offpremises field trips. 

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


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

HR 729 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as ‘‘Phylicia’s Law’’. 

3 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress finds the following: 

5 (1) Students achieve their full academic poten6 tial when they have the ability to learn in a safe and 

7 secure environment. 

8 (2) Off-campus school trips comprise an inte9 gral part of the educational experience for our Na10 tion’s students. Each year millions of students enjoy 

11 these trips, which provide them with invaluable 

12 learning opportunities outside the classroom. 

13 (3) There exists no Federal law requiring public 

14 schools to develop safety plans for off-premises, 

15 overnight, school-sponsored trips. 

16 SEC. 3. SCHOOL SAFETY PLAN. 

17 (a) REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCAL EDUCATIONAL

18 AGENCIES.—Each local educational agency that receives 

19 funds under part A of title IV of the Elementary and Sec20 ondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) 

21 shall develop and make publicly available a written school 

22 safety policy for off-premises, overnight field trips. 

23 (b) GUIDANCE FROM SECRETARY OF EDUCATION.— 

24 Congress encourages the Secretary of Education to pro25 vide guidance to local educational agencies described in 

26 subsection (a) by taking the steps necessary, such as 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
3 

HR 729 RFS

1 hosting a conference of interested parties, to assist in de2 veloping a model school safety policy that meets the re3 quirements described in such subsection. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 15, 2009. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
ALD-111-E NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-4792

___________

IN RE: DIMITRIOS MITCH FATOUROS,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the 

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to D.C. Civil No. 2:13-cv-04639)

District Judge: Honorable Claire C. Cecchi

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

December 27, 2013

Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 10, 2014)

_________

O P I N I O N

_________

PER CURIAM

Dimitrios Fatouros petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the 

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to terminate a motion to 

dismiss that is pending in the District Court. For the reasons that follow, we will deny 

Fatouros’s mandamus petition and accompanying counsel motion. 
2

I.

In July 2013, Fatouros filed a complaint pro se against Emmanuel Lambrakis, 

Artemios Sorras, and ten John Doe defendants, raising claims of libel, slander, and 

defamation. Sorras filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which is pending in the 

District Court. Thereafter, the District Court ordered Fatouros to file any response to the 

motion by January 14, 2014. 

Fatouros argues that because Sorras is not a United States citizen or resident, has 

not yet been served with a summons, and failed to provide contact information pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a), we should issue a writ of mandamus requiring the District Court 

to terminate Sorras’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Fatouros has also filed a motion 

for appointment of counsel. 

II.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary of 

circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Fatouros must 

demonstrate that “(1) no other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) 

[his] right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate 

under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Fatouros cannot make such a showing because he has other adequate means to 

challenge Sorras’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The District Court has not even 

ruled on the motion; Fatouros can thus raise in response to the motion the same 

arguments he raises in his mandamus petition. Moreover, Fatouros may seek appellate 
3

review if the pending motion to dismiss is ultimately granted. See In re Chambers Dev. 

Co., 148 F.3d 214, 223 (3d Cir. 1998) (“[A] writ of mandamus should not be issued 

where relief may be obtained through an ordinary appeal.”). Thus, mandamus is not 

appropriate.

Accordingly, because Fatouros cannot demonstrate extraordinary circumstances 

justifying a writ of mandamus, we will deny his petition. We will deny the motion for 

appointment of counsel as moot.
#### BRICTSON MFG. CO. v. WOODROUGH.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

February 8, 1923.)

No. 227.

Petition for Mandamus to the District Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska.

M. E. Culhane, of Minneapolis, Minn., and Frank L. Weaver and William M. Giller, both of Omaha, Neb., for petitioner. David A. Fitch, of Omaha, Neb., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Writ of mandamus granted, etc., on motion of petitioner. See, also (C. C. A.) 284 Fed. 484.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                      DYNAMIC HOMES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                     TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 25, 1999
                            FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                                 EXHIBIT NO. 27
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-25-1999
<CASH>                                         932,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,803,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (12,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,875,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,789,000
<PP&E>                                       7,116,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              (2,558,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,761,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,445,000
<BONDS>                                      2,758,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       228,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,226,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,761,000
<SALES>                                     12,459,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,225,000
<CGS>                                        9,895,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,874,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,377,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                75,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             153,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                592,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   237,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            355,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   355,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16



</TABLE>
#### BELASCO, Respondent, v. FAIRBANK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

June 15, 1894.)

Action by David Belasco against N. K. Fairbank. J. G. Deane, for appellant. D. Gerber, for respondent.

No opinion. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted.
ACCEPTED

04-15-00125-CR

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

11/3/2015 10:56:52 AM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 11/03/15 10:56:52 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*DOUGLAS CORR

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 87 Conn. App. 717 (AC 24551), is denied.

*930
      *Richard E. Condon, Jr.,*assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

*Julia K. Conlin,*deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided April 21, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6314 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6314

 To provide for the nonreduction in pay from a position of employment 
 with the Federal Government for members of the Coast Guard Reserve or 
     the National Guard participating in homeland defense missions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 2010

 Ms. Bordallo introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the nonreduction in pay from a position of employment 
 with the Federal Government for members of the Coast Guard Reserve or 
     the National Guard participating in homeland defense missions.

    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 ``Homeland Defense Operations Pay 
Equity Act''.

SEC. 2. NONREDUCTION IN PAY FOR MEMBERS OF COAST GUARD RESERVE OR 
              NATIONAL GUARD.

    Section 5538(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting after ``title 10'' the following: ``, 
        under section 12301(d) of title 10, or under section 712(a) of 
        title 14, or who is absent from such employment pursuant to an 
        order to full-time National Guard duty under section 
        502(f)(2)(A) of title 32,''; and
            (2) by inserting after ``serving on active duty'' the 
        following: ``or full-time National Guard duty''.
                                 <all>
```
CAM, R&S 

Strauss and others[Customers of American Armored Car]

American Armored Car (AAC)

Prima Check Cashing

MounVernoMoneCente(MVM

Step 1: AAC picks up customers’ cash on Day 1

Step 2: AAC sells 

customers’ cash to Prima (no fee)

Step 3: Prim

customers’ ca(no fee)

Step 4: Upon receipt of ca

immediately wires money inChase for same-day credit

2, Prima’s bank balance is 

Step 5: Prima keeps money of AAC’s customers in 

Prima’s account at Chase for multiple days before repaying AAC’s customers. Balance in Prima’s account at 

Chase remains inflated during this period.

Case 1:07-cr-00555-AKH Document 5-13 Filed 07/12/2007 Page 1 of 1
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 Veterans Affairs

      ( print page 22077)    
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in accordance with Public Law 92-463, gives notice that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Structural Safety of Department of Veterans Affairs Facilities (Committee) will be held on: 

Thursday, May 3, 2001: 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Friday, May 4, 2001: 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

The location of the meet will be 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, in Room 442 on both days.

The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary on matters of structural safety in the construction and remodeling of VA facilities and to recommend standards for use by VA in the construction and alteration of facilities as prescribed under Section 8105 of Title 38, United States Code.

On Thursday, May 3, 2001, the Committee will review the developments in the field of structural design, as they relate to seismic safety of buildings, and fire safety issues. On Friday, May 4, 2001, the Committee will vote on structural and fine safety issues for inclusion in VA's standards.

Both meetings will be open to the public. It will be necessary for those wishing to attend to contact Krishna K. Banga, Senior Structural Engineer, Facilities Quality Service, Office of Facilities Management, Department of Veterans Affairs Central Office, at 202-565-9370, prior to the meeting.

Dated: April 24, 2001.

By Direction of the Secretary.

Ventris C. Gibson,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-11031  Filed 5-1-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
**Navy IA Program Menu**

                    - U.S. Navy IA Home
                    - Phases of the IA Lifecycle                        - Phase 1: Pre-DeploymentPosted 06/12/2020
                      - Phase 2: Train and EquipPosted 06/12/2020
                      - Phase 3: Boots on the GroundPosted 06/12/2020
                      - Phase 4: Post DeploymentPosted 06/12/2020
                    - Volunteering for a Mobilization
                    - Resources                        - Sailor ResourcesPosted 06/12/2020
                      - Family ResourcesPosted 06/12/2020
                      - Employer ResourcesPosted 06/12/2020
                    - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
                    - Points of Contact
                    - Title 10 U.S. Code Reserve Component Benefits References
                    - Title 10 U.S. Code Search Engine (Prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives)

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
#### *In re*HIRSCHTICK, Michael John

(MR 21668)

Chicago, IL

Order of the Court:

The motion by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission to approve and confirm the report and recommendation of the Hearing Board is allowed. Respondent Michael John Hirschtick is disbarred and ordered to make restitution in the amount of $83,036.61 to Demetrius Drouzas.
[Cite as Wimmer Family Trust v. FirstEnergy Corp. , 123 Ohio St.3d 144, 2009-Ohio-4304.]

W IMMER F AMILY T RUST , A PPELLANT , v . F IRST E NERGY C ORPORATION ; O HIO E DISON C OMPANY , A PPELLEE . [Cite as Wimmer Family Trust v. FirstEnergy Corp., 123 Ohio St.3d 144, 2009-Ohio-4304.] Judgment of the court of appeals vacate d on the authority of Corrigan v. Illum. Co., and cause remanded to the trial court for a final declaration of the metes and bounds of the easement. (No. 2009-0249

— Submitted July 14, 2009

— Decided September 1, 2009.) A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, No. 08CA009392, 2008-Ohio-6870.

__________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeal s is vacated on the authority of Corrigan v. Illum. Co. , 122 Ohio St.3d 265, 2009-Ohio-2524, 910 N.E.2d 1009, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a final declaration of the metes and bounds of the easement. M OYER , C.J., and L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur. P FEIFER and O’D ONNELL , JJ., dissent.

__________________ Lester S. Potash, for appellant. Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A., Donald S. Scherzer, and John J. Schriner, for appellee.

______________________
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.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

                    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of the Kansas Advisory Committee to the                           ( print page 20787)                        Commission will convene at 10 a.m. and adjourn at 1 p.m. on May 17, 2001, at the Biltmore Hotel, 401 South Meridian, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73108. The purpose of the meeting is to receive planning input for project development.                

Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation to the Committee, should contact Melvin L. Jenkins, Director of the Central Regional Office, 913-551-1400 (TDD 913-551-1414). Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission.

Dated at Washington, DC, April 20, 2001.

Edward A. Hailes, Jr.,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 01-10276 Filed 4-24-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted), Jeffrey A. McCandless, Chief Financial Officer of theregistrant, hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

1.               This report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

2.               The information contained in this reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the registrant.

 
| Dated:  August 1, 2003 |   | /s/ Jeffrey A. McCandless                      |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                        |   | Jeffrey A. McCandless, Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----