alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 32783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13795]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 
Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special 
Exposure Cohort

AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: HHS gives notice of a decision to designate a class of 
employees from the Canoga Avenue Facility, Los Angeles County, 
California, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under 
the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 
2000. On May 14, 2010, the Secretary of HHS designated the following 
class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

    All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor 
agencies, and its contractors and subcontractors who worked at the 
Canoga Avenue Facility, Los Angeles County, California, from January 
1, 1955 through December 31, 1960 for a number of work days 
aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under 
this employment or in combination with work days within the 
parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in 
the Special Exposure Cohort.

    This designation will become effective June 13, 2010, unless 
Congress provides otherwise prior to the effective date. After this 
effective date, HHS will publish a notice in the Federal Register 
reporting the addition of this class to the SEC or the result of any 
provision by Congress regarding the decision by HHS to add the class to 
the SEC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Interim Director, 
Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, 
Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can 
also be submitted by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#16525557455655525538515940"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d59196948695969196fb929a83">[email protected]</span></a>.

John Howard,
Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-13795 Filed 6-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5588 

To assess the State by State impact of Federal taxation and spending. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

Mr. FOSTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To assess the State by State impact of Federal taxation 

and spending. 

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 ‘‘Payer State Trans5 parency Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CALCULATION OF FEDERAL TAX BURDENS AND 

7 OUTLAYS. 

8 (a) STATE BY STATE CALCULATION OF FEDERAL

9 TAX BURDENS.— 

10 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Commerce, 

11 acting through the Director of the Bureau of EcoVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:39 Sep 29, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5588.IH H5588

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5588 IH

1 nomic Analysis, shall calculate the Federal tax bur2 den of each State for each fiscal year. 

3 (2) CALCULATION OF FEDERAL TAX BUR4 DEN.—For purposes of calculating the Federal tax 

5 burden of each State under paragraph (1), the Sec6 retary shall— 

7 (A) account for variations in monthly Fed8 eral tax receipts from each State; and 

9 (B) treat Federal taxes paid by an indi10 vidual as a burden on the State in which such 

11 individual resides and treat Federal taxes paid 

12 by a legal business entity as a burden on the 

13 State in which the primary economic activity of 

14 such entity is performed. 

15 (b) STATE BY STATE CALCULATION OF FEDERAL

16 OUTLAYS.— 

17 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Office of 

18 Management and Budget, in coordination with the 

19 Council of Economic Advisers and the Secretary of 

20 the Treasury, shall calculate the total amount of 

21 Federal outlays received by each State in each fiscal 

22 year. 

23 (2) TREATMENT OF CONTRACT AWARDS.—For 

24 purposes of calculating the amount of Federal out25 lays received by a State under paragraph (1), a FedVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:39 Sep 29, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5588.IH H5588

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5588 IH

1 eral contract award shall be treated as a Federal 

2 outlay received by the State in which the primary 

3 performance under the award takes place. 

4 (c) STATE DEFINED.—In this section the term 

5 ‘‘State’’ means each of the several States. 

6 SEC. 3. JOINT REPORT. 

7 Not later than the date that is 90 days after the first 

8 day of each fiscal year beginning after the date of the en9 actment of this Act the Secretary of Commerce and the 

10 Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall— 

11 (1) jointly submit to Congress a report con12 taining the results of the calculations described in 

13 section 2 with respect to the previous fiscal year; 

14 and 

15 (2) publish the report on a publicly accessible 

16 website of the Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 53 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 53

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase from 1 to 2 years 
      the post employment restrictions on Members of the House of 
                            Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2013

 Mr. Fitzpatrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase from 1 to 2 years 
      the post employment restrictions on Members of the House of 
                            Representatives.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN POST EMPLOYMENT RESTRICTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF THE 
              HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

    (a) In General.--Section 207(e)(1) of title 18, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A)--
                    (A) in the subparagraph heading, by inserting ``and 
                members of the house of representatives'' after 
                ``Senators'';
                    (B) by inserting ``or a Member of the House of 
                Representatives'' after ``who is a Senator''; and
                    (C) by inserting ``or Member of the House of 
                Representatives'' after ``such former Senator'';
            (2) in subparagraph (B)--
                    (A) in the subparagraph heading. by striking 
                ``Members and officers'' and inserting ``Officers'';
                    (B) in clause (i)--
                            (i) by striking ``Any person who is a 
                        Member of the House of Representatives or'' and 
                        inserting ``Any person who is'';
                            (ii) by striking ``or (iii)''; and
                            (iii) by striking ``such former Member of 
                        Congress or'' and inserting ``such former'';
                    (C) by striking clause (ii); and
                    (D) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (ii).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to individuals who leave office on or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 15


Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  The Board of Directors
 Cellcom Israel Ltd:
  
 
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-141639 and No. 333-184955) on Form S-8 of Cellcom Israel Ltd. (“the Company”) of our report dated March 4, 2013, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2012, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012, which report appears in the December 31, 2012 annual report on Form 20-F of the Company.
  Our report refers to the fact that the consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012 have been translated into United States dollars (“dollars”) solely for the convenience of the reader. The consolidated financial statements expressed in New Israeli Shekels have been translated into dollars on the basis set forth in Note 2D to the consolidated financial statements.
  
  Somekh Chaikin
  Certified Public Accountants (Israel)
 Member Firm of KPMG International
  Tel Aviv, Israel
  March 4, 2013
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 28, 2009

l0921 

# Order

September 28, 2009

138154(53)

ATLANTIC XXXI, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 138154 COA: 278104 Oakland CC: 2003-053566-CK ART MIDWEST L.P., ART MIDWEST, INC., AMERICAN REALTY IN VESTORS, INC. and BASIC CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, and

AMERICAN REALTY TRUST, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for r econsideration of this Court’s April 28, 2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
**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**

|   | */s/Robert                  C.                  Salipante                      * |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Robert                  C. Salipante                                                                                                                                                           |
|   | President                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|   | August                  11, 2006                                                                                                                                                               |
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4840-4592-8620.1

Exhibit B

SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION BY WORK TASK CODE

FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1, 2019 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2019

Task 

Code

Task Description Hours Total Billed

1 Case Administration 9.7 $6,075.00

2 Communications Platform 38.0 $23,171.00

3 Corporate Governance 25.4 $15,819.00

4 Court Proceedings 4.0 $2,520.00

5 Future Wildfire Mitigation 19.4 $9,267.00

6 Meetings and Communications with Committee Professionals 17.5 $8,505.00

7 Meetings and Communications with Creditors 17.0 $10,677.00

8 Public Policy 49.4 $30,951.00

9 Rate Base 20.1 $12,096.00

10 Real Estate 33.6 $21,102.00

11 Retention and Fee Applications 20.4 $12,771.00

Total 254.5 $152,954.00

See notes regarding certain discounts and reductions above.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4727-2 Filed: 11/14/19 Entered: 11/14/19 14:32:47 Page 1

of 1
#### Hines & Hobbs, plaintiffs in error, *vs.*H. I. Kimball *&*Company, and Roland B. Hall, claimant, defendants in error.

When there is a levy of an attachment and a claim, the claimant may move, upon the motion docket, t.o dismiss the attachment for any good cause of objections thereto.

When an attachment affidavit stated that H. I. Kimball & Company, said firm composed of Hannibal I. Kimball and certain parties unknown to the deponent, are justly indebted, etc., and that said Hannibal I. , Kimball & Company absconds :

*Held,*That this was a sufficient affidavit on which to issue an attachment against the effects of H. I. Kimball & Company.

Attachment. Claim. Affidavit. Before Judge Strozieb. Dougherty Superior Court. October Term, 1872.

Hines & Hobbs sued out an attachment against H. I. Kim-ball & Company, upon an affidavit to the effect “that Hannibal I. Kimball & Company, said firm composed of said Hannibal I. Kimball, and certain parties unknown to deponent, are indebted (o said firm of Hines *&*Hobbs in the sum of five thousand, five hundred and thirty-seven dollars and seventy-five cents, ($5,537 75) and that said Hannibal I. Kimball & Company absconds.” The attachment was levied upon certain personalty as the property of defendants, which was claimed by Roland B. Hall. Upon the trial of the issue formed by said claim, a motion was made to dismiss the attachment, which was sustained upon the following grounds, to-wit:

1st. Because the attachment affidavit was insufficient to sustain an attachment either against H. I. Kimball or H. I. Kimball *&*Company.

*5882d. Because an attachment affidavit is not amendable.

3d. Because a claimant to property levied on under attachment is such a party in interest as can make such a motion.

Whereupon plaintiffs excepted, and assign said ruling as error.

Hines & Hobbs, for plaintifís in error.

Smith *&*Jones; R. F. Lyon, for defendants.

McCay, Judge.

Without question, a claimant may attack the plaintiff’s judgment for any thing which makes it void. He may do this even collaterally on the trial of the claim. So, too, does it seem to us he can do it directly by a motion in the Court of its origin: Revised Code, sections 3534, 3535, 3538. We do not think this attachment void. It sets forth that H. I. Kimball & Company are indebted; that H. I. Kimball & Company are a firm of which the partners are H. I. Kimball and other persons to the affiant unknown, and that H. I. Kimball & Company abscond.

It is said that this is only saying that H. I. Kimball absconds, since it is impossible that the affiant can swear that the firm absconds, when he knows none of the firm but H. I. Kimball. But this is not clear. He may well know that H." I. Kimball and various other persons, some of whom were his partners, have all gone, and yet not be able to say distinctly which ones of the lot were the partners. He swears that the firm — all of it, has absconded. This may be true, it may not. But if the affidavit is admitted, as it must be on a demurrer, we think it is sufficient. It swears all that the law requires— the existence of the debt and of the firm, and that the firm absconds.

Judgment reversed.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Overton Argued at Norfolk, Virginia

LEO LAMONT VEREEN MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 2809-96-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON OCTOBER 7, 1997 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS Randolph T. West, Judge James S. Ellenson for appellant. Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General; H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Leo Lamont Vereen (defendant) appeals his conviction for possession of a handgun while being a felon. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion by continuing his trial,

sua sponte , after the Commonwealth had rested. Because we find no merit to this argument, we affirm. The parties are fully conversant with the record in the cause, and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedential value, no recitation of the facts is necessary. "A motion for a continuance . . . is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court whose decision will not be reversed unless the record affirmatively shows an abuse of such discretion." Smith v. Commonwealth , 16 Va. App. 630, 634, 432

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.2 S.E.2d 2, 5 (1993) (citing Shifflett v. Commonwealth , 218 Va. 25, 30, 235 S.E.2d 316, 319 (1977)). Defendant ascribes error to the distinction between the trial court granting a motion of the parties to continue the case and the court continuing the case by its own motion. This is a distinction without a difference. "A trial judge has the right, indeed it is his duty, when necessary for the fair and orderly administration of justice to participate in the trial and facilitate its progress." Skipper v. Commonwealth , 195 Va. 870, 879, 80 S.E.2d 401, 406 (1954). A trial court may even reopen the case after closing arguments have been made if it deems that justice so requires. See Robinson v. Commonwealth , 190 Va. 134, 141, 56 S.E.2d 367, 370-71 (1949). It surely has the power to continue a case to allow further evidence on a relevant issue even if the Commonwealth has rested. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by continuing the case on its own. Accordingly, we affirm defendant's conviction.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5475 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5475

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the care provided by 
         the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to newborn children.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 16, 2014

    Mr. Collins of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the care provided by 
         the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to newborn children.

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

SECTION 1. IMPROVEMENT OF CARE PROVIDED TO NEWBORN CHILDREN.

    Section 1786 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``seven days'' and 
        inserting ``14 days''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(c) Annual Report.--Not later than October 31 of each year, the 
Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the 
House of Representatives and the Senate a report on the health care 
services provided under subsection (a) during the fiscal year preceding 
the date of the report, including the number of newborn children who 
received such services during such fiscal year.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### J. T. BALLARD and Wife, M. A. BALLARD, v. JOHN METCALF, BERRY ENGLISH, JOHN McELROY, Trustee, and R. W. WILSON.

*(Filed*27 September, *1939.)*

Venue § 2a—

An action by creditors to enjoin foreclosure of a deed of trust on tbe debtor’s land and for tbe appointment of a receiver is properly removed to the county in which the land is situate upon defendants’ motion.

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Ervin, Jr., J.,*at January Special Term, 1939, of Yancey.

Affirmed.

*Charles Hutchins for plaintiffs, appellants.*

*Roberts & Baley and John H. McElroy for defendants, appellees.*

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs brought this action to restrain the sale of lands in Madison County under judgment of the Superior Court of tbat county, and under the power of sale contained in the mortgage deed, upon the grounds tbat sucb sale would sacrifice the value of the property and leave nothing to which other creditors might resort for the payment of their debts. They asked for the appointment of a receiver, to the end tbat the property might be more orderly administered, which they claim might accomplish the full satisfaction of their debts.

The defendants, in apt time, entered a motion for tbe removal of tbe cause to Madison County, where the lands lie, as tbe proper venue for trial. The plaintiffs appealed from the order of removal.

The order of removal was proper, and the judgment is

Affirmed.
EX-35.1
(logo) Bank of America

Bank of America
475 CrossPoint Parkway
PO Box 9000
Getzville, NY 14068-9000


Annual Statement as to Compliance

Banc of America Funding 2007-1 Trust

I, H. Randall Chestnut, a Senior Vice President of Bank of America, National
Association (the "Servicer"), hereby certify pursuant to the Section 2.17 of
the Servicing Agreement, dated January 30, 2007 (the "Agreement"), between Banc
of America Funding Corporation, as Depositor, and the Servicer, that: (a) a
review of the Servicer's activities during calendar year 2007 and of the
Servicer's performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision;
and (b) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout calendar year 2007.


March 26, 2008


Bank of America, N.A.
as Servicer

By: /s/ H. Randall Chestnut
Name: H. Randall Chestnut
Title: Senior Vice President
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 1, 2017

Order 

Clerk

September 1, 2017

155880(86)

LEVERT LYONS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 155880

v COA: 329584; 329597; 329607

Wayne CC: 15-001381-NM

SCOTT C. KINSEL, JEFFREY D. HUNT,

and MOORE LANDREY, LLP, 

Defendants-Appellants,

and

JOHN P. COWART, TARA J. WILLIAMS, and

LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SCOTT FARRIN,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

ETHAN L. SHAW, SHAW COWART, LLP,

J. THOMAS RHODES, III, FILEMON B. VELA,

JR., RHODES & VELA, GORDON T. CAREY,

JR., and GORDON T. CAREY, JR., PC,

Defendants.

__________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellants to extend the 

time for filing their reply is GRANTED. The reply submitted on August 25, 2017, is 

accepted for filing.