alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      August 7, 2008 |  /s/      Ronald S. Saks                                           |
|---------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      | Ronald      S. Saks                                                          |
|                      | President      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal      Executive Officer) |
|                      |                                                                         |
|                      |                                                                         |
| Date:      August 7, 2008 |  /s/      Lawrence E. Dickinson                                    |
|                      | Lawrence      E. Dickinson                                                   |
|                      | Secretary      and Chief Financial Officer                                   |
|                      | (Principal      Financial Officer and PrincipalAccounting      Officer)      |
### Proposed Provision: F3. Expand covered earnings to include employer and employee premiums for employer-sponsored group health insurance (ESI). Starting in 2027, phase out the OASDI payroll tax exclusion for ESI premiums. Set an exclusion level at the 75th percentile of premium distribution in 2027, with amounts above that subject to the payroll tax. Reduce the exclusion level each year by 10 percent of the 2027 exclusion level until fully eliminated in 2037.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3986 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3986

To delay the effectiveness of certain new rules or regulations relating 
                  to the United States energy sector.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 31, 2022

 Mr. Marshall (for himself, Mr. Braun, and Mr. Daines) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To delay the effectiveness of certain new rules or regulations relating 
                  to the United States energy sector.

    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 ``Gas Prices Relief Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. ENERGY REGULATIONS HOLIDAY.

    (a) In General.--During the period described in subsection (b), no 
Federal agency shall finalize any rule or regulation that would cause--
            (1) a decrease in domestic oil, gas, or biofuels 
        production;
            (2) an increase in gasoline prices; or
            (3) any negative effects on domestic energy production, 
        domestic electricity generation, transmission of fuel or 
        electricity, infrastructure development, or transportation 
        fuels.
    (b) Period Described.--The period referred to in subsection (a) is 
the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on 
the earlier of--
            (1) January 1, 2023; and
            (2) the date on which the national average consumer 
        gasoline price is $2.60 per gallon or less.
                                 <all>
```
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Temperate Tree Fruit and Vegetable Research: Wapato, WA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Facilities
                        USDA Laboratory in Wapato, WA
                                    USDA Prosser Worksite
                                    USDA Moxee Farm
                    About UsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Wapato, Washington Temperate Tree Fruit and Vegetable Research Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Research Projects Subjects of Investigation at this LocationEach ARS research project has related subjects of investigation.  Listed below are the subjects of investigation currently conducted at this location.
Clicking on a subject of investigation will list the research projects within that  subject of investigation.


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7285

DOUGLAS E. BLACK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MARTIN J. MCDADE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-856-5-BR)

Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 14, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Kieran Maher, RUDOLF & MAHER, Chapel Hill, North Carolina,

for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Black v. McDade, No. CA-96-856-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Aug. 19,

1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 23.  Consent of Independent Public Accountants

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Form 10-K of our report dated February 9, 2001 included in
Registration Statements on Form S-8, Nos. 333-13503, 333-13507 and 333-13515.
It should be noted that we have not audited any financial statements of OTR
Express, Inc. subsequent to December 31, 2000 or performed any audit
procedures subsequent to the date of our report.


/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Kansas City, Missouri
March 29, 2000
#### JOHN E. TURNER, Employee v. BURKE HOSIERY MILL, Employer; THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., Carrier.

(Filed 25 November, 1959.)

*t.*Master and Servant § 63—

Decision denying compensation for injury to claimant’s back while doing repetitive work of tbe same type be bad been doing theretofore affirmed on tbe authority of *Hensley v. Cooperative,*246 N.C. 274.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Armstrong, J.,*July Civil Term, 1959,. of RANDOLPH.

The plaintiff filed claim under the North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act against the Burke Hosiery Mill and its earner, The Travelers Insurance Company, alleging an injury to his back on 24 September 1957, while he was working as a knitter on a double diamond hosiery machine in the Burke Hosiery Mill, Asheboro, North Carolina. The matter was heard before a deputy commissioner of the Industrial Commission.

The plaintiff had been employed as a knitter in the Burke Hosiery Mill for more than four years. For a period of at least one month prior to the alleged injury he had been knitting double diamond hosiery. According to the plaintiff’s evidence, during the evening of 24 September 1957 he leaned over the bank of the knitting machine to make a change, which required the unlocking of the friction and carrier. *“** * * I was making a change on the machine, unlocking the friction and pulling the friction and carrier out together. In doing so I' felt that I had1 done something to my back. I had a stinging sensation and some little pain at the time, but I went on working that night.

The witness gave a written statement shortly thereafter to the ef-*326feet that “when I was moving the friction I felt a pain in my back. At this time I was either* in an awkward position or on one foot.” At the hearing, in response to tire question, “Were you or were you not in an awkward position?” his answer was: “I say it is possible that I could have been.”

The plaintiff’s further testimony was to the effect that he had to make “a change like we were doing on September 24 from 12 to 15 times a day. I was doing the same type of work that I had been doing for 4 years.”

The deputy commissioner found as a fact that the plaintiff on 24 September 1957 sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and awarded compensation.

Upon appeal to the full Commission, the Commission found, as a fact, “That on the occasion complained of plaintiff did not sustain an injury by accident arising out of .and in the course of his employment.”

On appeal to the Superior Court, his Honor upheld and affirmed the decision of the full Commission, The plaintiff -appeals, assigning error.

*Coltrane & Gavin for plaintiff.*

*Sapp & Sapp for defendants.*

Per Curiam.

After a careful examination of the plaintiff’s assignments of error we are constrained to hold that -this ease falls within the purview of our decision in *Hensley v. Cooperative,*246 N.C. 274, 98 S.E. 2d 289, and on authority of that case the judgment below is

Affirmed.
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and Graphs |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|

| Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA) | Description of Proposed Provision:      Give parents earnings credits for up to five years if they have a child under 6. The earnings credited for a childcare year would be such that the resulting earnings assigned to the parents would equal one half of the Social Security average-wage index -- about $21,021 in 2009. The credits would be available for all past years to newly eligible retired-worker and disabled-worker beneficiaries in 2010 and later. The 5 most advantageous years would be used if more than 5 childcare credit years are possible; that is, the 5 years that make the biggest difference in indexed earnings. |
|---------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2009 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified November 18, 2009 |
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 2611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-533]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Agenda for the January 19, 1995 Meeting of the Advisory 
Commission for the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park; 
Public Meeting

Fort Mason, Building F (Firehouse)

9:00 AM-12:30 PM

9:00 am
    Welcome--William G. Thomas, Superintendent
    Opening Remarks--Neil Chaitin, Chairman
    Old Business
    Approval of Minutes
9:15 am
    Orientation to Park Departments
    Library, David Hull, Principal Librarian
    Historic Documents, Mary Jo Pugh, Supervisory Archivist
9:35 am
    Update--Museum Accreditation, San Francisco Maritime National 
Historical Park, Marc Hayman--Chief, Interpretation and Resource 
Management
9:50 am
    Update--General Management Plan, William G. Thomas, Superintendent
10:10 am
    Discussion--Organization Chart, San Francisco Maritime National 
Historical Park, William G. Thomas, Superintendent
10:25 am
    Report--JEREMIAH O'BRIEN Normandy trip and plans for the future
10:45 am
    BREAK
11:00 am
    Update--National Maritime Museum Association--Strategic Plan, Kathy 
Lohan, Executive Director, NMMA
11:15 am
    Discussion--Establish Advisory Commission Committees, Neil Chaitin, 
Chairman
11:35 pm
    Public Questions and Comments
11:50 pm
    Agenda Items/Date for next meeting
Noon Adjournment

    Dated: December 29, 1994.
Phil H. Ward,
Acting Regional Director, Western Region.
[FR Doc. 95-533 Filed 1-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
#### STATE v. NEWLAND LeFEVERS.

(Filed 8 April, 1942.)

Homicide § 22—

Where a defendant in a homicide prosecution offers evidence tending to show that he killed deceased in self-defense, evidence of the general reputation of deceased for violence is competent, but defendant is not entitled to show specific acts of violence of deceased unconnected with the homicide, and in cross-examination of a State’s witness, the State’s objection to an interrogation as to whether the witness did not know the deceased had “the general reputation of having held up and robbed a man with firearms” is properly sustained.

Appeal by defendant from *Clement, J.,*at December Term, 1941, of Bubke.

No error.

The defendant was charged with the murder of one Edwin Pitts. The jury returned verdict of guilty of manslaughter. From judgment imposing sentence, the defendant appealed.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the 8tate.*

*C. E. Cowan and Mull & Patton for defendant.*

*185DbyiN, J.

Edwin Pitts was fatally stabbed by the defendant, following a brief altercation, on the floor of a dance hall at the Yaldese swimming pool. The deceased was at the time unarmed. The defendant pleaded self-defense.

In line with this defense the defendant offered evidence tending to show that the deceased had the general reputation of being a violent and dangerous fighting man, and the State offered evidence in rebuttal. In the course of the cross-examination of a State’s witness on this point the defendant asked the witness if he did not know that the deceased had the general reputation of having held up and robbed a man with firearms. Objection to this question by the State was sustained and the defendant excepted. The witness, if permitted to answer, would have replied, “Yes, in New York at one time he did that, I understand.” The same question was asked of two other witnesses, with like result.

We find no error in the ruling of the court. *Edwards v. Price,*162 N. C., 243, 18 S. E., 145. The proffered testimony related to a single instance of lawlessness on the part of the deceased, and its competency may not be held supported by the rule enunciated in *S. v. Turpin,*77 N. C., 473. Where there is evidence tending to show that the defendant acted in self-defense, evidence of the general reputation of the deceased for violence may be admitted, but this rule does not render admissible evidence of specific acts of violence which have no connection with the homicide. *S. v. Hodgin,*210 N. C., 371, 186 S. E., 495; *S. v. Melton,*166 N. C., 442, 81 S. E., 602; *Smith v. State,*197 Ala., 193; 121 A. L. R., 382; 26 Am. Jur., 394. “The rule allows a cross-examination as to reputation of a particular trait but not of particular acts.” *S. v. Cathey,*170 N. C., 794, 87 S. E., 532.

The only other assignment of error relates to the admission of the testimony of a witness that shortly before the homicide defendant was under the influence of liquor. Objection on this score cannot be sustained.

In the trial we find

No error.
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-2018-0025-2037

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 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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-2406

ND Paper LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September_2019.pdf. 

An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the exclusion notice. The scope of the exclusion is governed by the scope of the 10-digit HTSUS 

subheadings and product descriptions in the annex to the product exclusion notice, and not by the 

product descriptions set out in any particular request for exclusion. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel