alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-488]

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

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

12 CFR Part 630

RIN 3052-AB23

Disclosure to Investors in Systemwide and Consolidated Bank Debt 
Obligations of the Farm Credit System; Effective Date

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.

ACTION: Notice of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) published a final 
regulation under part 630 on September 12, 1994 (59 FR 46734). The 
final regulation adds 12 CFR part 630 to ensure that timely and 
accurate Systemwide financial information continues to be disclosed to 
investors and the public to assist them in making informed decisions 
regarding Farm Credit System debt obligations and System institutions. 
In accordance with 12 U.S.C. 2252, the effective date of the final rule 
is 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register during 
which either or both Houses of Congress are in session. Based on the 
records of the sessions of Congress, the effective date of the 
regulations is January 4, 1995.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The regulation adding 12 CFR part 630 published on 
September 12, 1994 (59 FR 46734) is effective January 4, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tong-Ching Chang, Staff Accountant, Policy Development and Planning 
Division, Office of Examination, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, 
Virginia 22102-5090, (703) 883-4483, TDD (703) 883-4444,

    or

William L. Larsen, Senior Attorney, Regulatory Operations Division, 
Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, Virginia 
22102-5090, (703) 883-4020, TDD (703) 883-4444.

(12 U.S.C. 2252(a)(9) and (10)).

    Dated: January 4, 1995.
Floyd Fithian,
Acting Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 95-488 Filed 1-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
```
Year Cost Rate

Income 

Rate

Annual 

Balance

2008 11.20 12.77 1.57 359

2009 11.26 11.81 0.54 369

2010 11.37 11.82 0.46 370

2011 11.53 11.84 0.31 370

2012 11.76 11.87 0.10 367

2013 12.03 11.90 -0.13 362

2014 12.32 11.92 -0.40 355

2015 12.62 11.94 -0.68 346

2016 12.93 11.96 -0.96 336

2017 13.24 11.99 -1.26 324

2018 13.54 12.01 -1.53 311

2019 13.84 12.03 -1.81 297

2020 14.14 12.04 -2.09 281

2021 14.42 12.06 -2.36 265

2022 14.69 12.08 -2.61 248

2023 14.95 12.10 -2.85 230

2024 15.20 12.11 -3.09 211

2025 15.44 12.13 -3.31 191

2026 15.66 12.14 -3.51 170

2027 15.87 12.16 -3.71 148

2028 16.07 12.17 -3.90 125

2029 16.25 12.18 -4.07 102

2030 16.41 12.19 -4.22 78

2031 16.54 12.20 -4.34 53

2032 16.66 12.21 -4.45 28

2033 16.75 12.22 -4.53 2

2034 16.80 12.22 -4.58 ----

2035 16.84 12.23 -4.62 ----

2036 16.87 12.23 -4.64 ----

2037 16.88 12.23 -4.65 ----

2038 16.88 12.24 -4.64 ----

2039 16.85 12.24 -4.62 ----

2040 16.82 12.23 -4.58 ----

2041 16.78 12.23 -4.54 ----

2042 16.74 12.23 -4.51 ----

2043 16.70 12.23 -4.47 ----

2044 16.66 12.23 -4.43 ----

2045 16.62 12.23 -4.40 ----

2046 16.60 12.23 -4.37 ----

2047 16.57 12.23 -4.34 ----

2048 16.55 12.23 -4.32 ----

2049 16.53 12.23 -4.31 ----

2050 16.52 12.23 -4.30 ----

2051 16.52 12.23 -4.29 ----

2052 16.53 12.23 -4.30 ----

2053 16.54 12.23 -4.30 ----

2054 16.55 12.23 -4.32 ----

2055 16.57 12.23 -4.33 ----

2056 16.59 12.24 -4.36 ----

2057 16.62 12.24 -4.38 ----

2058 16.64 12.24 -4.40 ----

2059 16.67 12.24 -4.42 ----

2060 16.69 12.24 -4.45 ----

2061 16.72 12.25 -4.47 ----

2062 16.74 12.25 -4.49 ----

2063 16.77 12.25 -4.52 ----

2064 16.79 12.25 -4.54 ----

2065 16.82 12.25 -4.57 ----

Detailed Single Year Tables

Category of Change: Payroll Tax Rates

Proposed Provision: Beginning in 2009, reduce the combined OASDI payroll tax rate from 12.4 percent 

to 11.4 percent.

Expressed as a percentage of taxable payrol Trust Fund 

Ratio 

1-1-year
2066 16.86 12.26 -4.60 ----

2067 16.89 12.26 -4.63 ----

2068 16.92 12.26 -4.66 ----

2069 16.95 12.26 -4.69 ----

2070 16.99 12.26 -4.72 ----

2071 17.03 12.27 -4.76 ----

2072 17.07 12.27 -4.80 ----

2073 17.11 12.27 -4.83 ----

2074 17.15 12.27 -4.87 ----

2075 17.19 12.28 -4.91 ----

2076 17.23 12.28 -4.95 ----

2077 17.27 12.28 -4.99 ----

2078 17.32 12.28 -5.03 ----

2079 17.36 12.29 -5.07 ----

2080 17.41 12.29 -5.12 ----

2081 17.45 12.29 -5.16 ----

2082 17.50 12.29 -5.21 ----

2083 17.55 12.30 -5.25 ----

2084 17.59 12.30 -5.29 ----

2085 17.64 12.30 -5.33 ----

Summarized Rates: OASDI

2008 Cost Rate Income Rate

Actuarial 

Balance

-2082 15.64% 12.96% -2.68% -0.98%

Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security

Estimates based on Intermediate Assumptions of the 2008 Trustees Report

Change in 

Actuarial Balance

November 13, 2008
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Haley, Millette and Senior Judge Coleman 

PILGRIMS PRIDE CORPORATION AND 

 ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 

v. Record No. 0949-08-4 PER CURIAM 

 AUGUST 12, 2008 

ANGELICA PIZANO-MURILLO 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Kristin A. Zech; Wharton, Aldhizer & Weaver, P.L.C., on brief), for 

appellants. 

 (George L. Townsend; The Chandler Law Group, on brief), for 

appellee. 

 Pilgrims Pride Corporation and its insurer (hereinafter referred to as “employer”) appeal a 

decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that (1) employer failed to prove 

Angelica Pizano-Murillo’s (claimant) October 24, 2006 work-related injury was the result of her 

willful misconduct and violation of a known safety rule1

; and (2) claimant proved entitlement to 

temporary total disability benefits from November 7, 2006 through November 27, 2006. We 

have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without 

merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See

Pizano-Murillo v. Pilgrims Pride Corp., VWC File No. 231-30-01 (Mar. 18, 2008). We dispense 

with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

1

 The commission also ruled that “[e]ven assuming arguendo that the claimant knew of a 

safety rule, the employer did not routinely enforce any rule.” 
- 2 - 

presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.
#### STATE v. JAMES COTTLE and EDGAR RENFROW.

(Filed 16 October, 1951.)

Appeal by defendants from *Stevens, J.,*February Term, 1951, of SAMPSON.

Appeal dismissed without written opinion upon authority of *S. v. Lea,*203 N.C. 316.

JohNsoN, J.,

took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2396

Reelcraft Industries:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                                     502,864
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               88,385
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                596,590
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           346,940
<PP&E>                                                  10,727,983
<DEPRECIATION>                                           2,586,110
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          11,181,656
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    2,310,332
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                       283
<OTHER-SE>                                               8,006,176
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            11,181,656
<SALES>                                                  6,430,369
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         6,650,009
<CGS>                                                    2,665,425
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            6,467,438
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         120,926
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             61,645
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         61,645
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                61,645
<EPS-BASIC>                                                (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0


</TABLE>
#### NETA EDWARDS v. JOEL T. MATTHEWS, Executor of E. D. Bass, Deceased.

(Filed 12 September, 1928.)

Executors and Administrators — Allowance and Payment of Claims— Claims Against Decedent for Services Rendered — Quasi-Contracts— Quantum Meruit.

Where the plaintiff declares upon an express contract with defendant’s intestate she is not precluded from recovery upon *quantum meruit*for services rendered three years before intestate’s death when the evidence supports the claim and there is no relationship between the decedent and the plaintiff to raise the presumption that the services were gratuitously rendered.

Appeal by defendant from *Daniels, J.,*at January Term, 1928, of Nash.

No error.

Civil action to recover for services rendered by plaintiff to defendant’s testator.

By its answer to the first issue the jury found that defendant’s testator did not enter into the express contract with plaintiff, as alleged in her complaint.

From judgment on the verdict that defendant is indebted to plaintiff upon a *quantum meruit*for such services, in the sum of $2,100, defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

*Austin & Davenport for plaintiff.*

*L. T. Vaughn, W. M. Person and I. T. Valentine for defendant.*

*40Per .Curiam.

Defendant’s exception to the submission of the fourth issue, to wit: “Is the defendant indebted to the plaintiff upon the *quantum meruit*for services rendered ?” cannot be sustained.

In her complaint plaintiff alleged an express contract by which defendant’s testator promised and agreed to compensate her liberally for the services rendered by her. She relied upon this contract as the foundation of her cause of action. However, her failure to prove the express contract did not preclude her recovery for the services which the evidence shows that she rendered to defendant’s testator upon a *quantum meruit.*There was no relationship between plaintiff and defendant’s testator from which a presumption arises that' the services were gratuitous. *Lowrie v. Oxendine,*153 N. C., 268, 69 S. E., 131. There was no error in the submission of the fburth issue. *Stokes v. Taylor,*104 N. C., 394, 10 S. E., 566, 13 C. J., 750, sec. 910.

Recovery was limited, under instructions of the court, to services rendered during three years immediately preceding the death of defendant’s testator. Assignments' of error based upon exceptions to the admission of evidence cannot be sustained. The evidence was properly submitted' to the jury and is sufficient to sustain the verdict. There are no assignments of error based upon exceptions to the charge. The judgment is affirmed. There is

No error.
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, J. William Richardson, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of InterstateHotels & Resorts, Inc.;  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 otherfinancial information included in this quarterly report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this 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–1(e) for the registrantand 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 thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this quarterlyreport is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisquarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and;
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on 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 equivalentfunction):
 a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the 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.        Dated: August 9, 2004 /s/ J. William Richardson   J. William Richardson Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE v. DAVID STEPHENSON

(Filed 20 November, 1957)

Criminal Law § 127—

Upon plea of guilty to a charge of public drunkenness, G.S. 14-335, sentence of defendant “to the roads for a term of 30 days” is not in compliance with G.S. 148-30 or G.S. 148-32, and upon appeal the judgment must be vacated and the cause remanded for a new and proper judgment.

Appeal by defendant from *Fountain, Special Judge,*August Term, 1957, of Harnett.

On defendant’s appeal from judgment of Recorder’s Court of Dunn, this case came on for trial in superior court on the original warrant which charged, *inter alia,*that defendant on or about July 1, 1956, did unlawfully and wilfully “engage in public drunkness and disorderly conduct at a public place in town of Dunn to wit: the bus station,” etc.

*232As to what occurred in the superior court, the record shows the following, nothing more:

“Defendant plead guilty to public drunkenness, whereupon the defendant was sentenced to the roads for a term of 30 days. Defendant in open court gives notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of North Carolina . . .”

Defendant’s sole assignment of error is that said judgment is “incomplete, illegal and void.”

*Attorney General Patton and Assistant Attorney General Bru-ton for the State.*

*E. R. Temple for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

Upon his plea of guilty to the charge of public drunkenness, defendant was subject to punishment as provided by G.S. 14-335. In such case, where the judgment is one of imprisonment, the sentence imposed should be as provided by G.S. 148-30 or by G.S. 148-32. Also, see G.S. 15-6.

The sentence imposed by the judgment *as appears in the record*was not in compliance with G.S. 148-30 or with G.S. 148-32. Hence, since defendant’s appeal constitutes an exception thereto, the judgment is vacated; and the cause is remanded for a new and proper judgment upon defendant’s plea of guilty to the charge of public drunkenness.

We are not unmindful that the judgment *as recorded*may reflect the interpretation placed thereon by the clerk who prepared the minutes rather than the judgment as pronounced by the presiding judge.

Remanded for proper judgment.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-11478

Trio Engineered Products:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5520]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5166-6]


Common Sense Initiative Council, Iron and Steel Sector 
Subcommittee Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Common Sense Initiative Council, Iron and Steel Sector 
Subcommittee--Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency established the Common 
Sense Initiative Council (CSIC)--Iron and Steel Sector Subcommittee 
(CSIC-ISS) on October 17, 1994, to provide independent advice and 
counsel to EPA on policy issues associated with the iron and steel 
industry. The charter for CSIC is authorized through October 17, 1996 
under regulations established by the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(FACA). The Iron and Steel Sector Subcommittee is currently in the 
process of identifying issues and projects that it will pursue.

OPEN MEETING NOTICE: Notice is hereby given that the Environmental 
Protection Agency is convening an open meeting of the Iron and Steel 
Sector Subcommittee on Wednesday, March 22, 1995 from 12:00 noon to 
3:00 p.m. at the Ambassador West Hotel, 1300 North State Parkway, 
Chicago, Illinois 60610, telephone number 312-787-3700. Seating will be 
available on a first come, first served basis.
    The Iron and Steel Subcommittee has created four workgroups which 
are responsible for proposing to the full Subcommittee for Subcommittee 
review and approval potential activities or projects that the Iron and 
Steel Sector Subcommittee will undertake, and for carrying out projects 
once approved. These workgroups will be meeting on Tuesday preceding 
the meeting. The purpose of the this meeting will for the four 
Subcommittee workgroups to report on the progress they have made, and 
for the Subcommittee to review and discuss the activities or projects 
recommended by the workgroups, to provide further guidance as 
necessary, and, as appropriate, to approve projects for which detailed 
workplans will be subsequently developed.

INSPECTION OF SUBCOMMITTEE DOCUMENTS: Documents relating to the above 
topics will be publicly available at the meeting. Thereafter, these 
documents and the minutes of the meeting will be available for public 
inspection in room 2417M of EPA Headquarters, 401 M Street SW., 
Washington, D.C. 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information about this 
meeting, please call either Ms. Mary Byrne at 312-353-2315 in Chicago, 
Illinois or Ms. Judith Hecht at 202-260-5682 in Washington, D.C.

    Dated: February 28, 1995.
Mahesh Podar,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 95-5520 Filed 3-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JIMMIE EDWARD KEENE

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 17

- 1048

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed May 8, 2018

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Putnam County

, Clyde E. Wolfe , Judge.

Ryan Thomas Truskoski, Special Assistant,

and Jeffrey Deen, Office of the Criminal and

Civil Regional Counsel, Casselberry, for

Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, and Nora Hutchinson Hall,

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See McMullen v. State , 714 So. 2 d 368 (Fla. 1998); Pietri v. State

,

935 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

SAWAYA

, LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE , JJ., conc ur.