alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 52 (Friday, March 17, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14390-14391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6548]



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


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 675

[Docket No. 950206040-5040-01; I.D. 031095F]


Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Offshore 
Component Pollock in the Aleutian Islands Subarea

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock by vessels 
catching pollock for processing by the offshore component in the 
Aleutian Islands subarea (AI) of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding 
the ``A'' season allowance of pollock for the offshore component in the 
Aleutian Islands subarea.

[[Page 14391]] EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), 
March 13, 1995, until 12 midnight, A.l.t., December 31, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew N. Smoker, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive 
economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery Management 
Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council 
under authority of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is governed by regulations implementing 
the FMP at 50 CFR parts 620 and 675.
    The allowance of pollock TAC for vessels catching pollock for 
processing by the offshore component in the AI was established by the 
final 1995 initial groundfish specifications (60 FR 8479, February 14, 
1995) as 31,272 metric tons (mt).
    The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Director), determined, 
in accordance with Sec. 675.20(a)(8), that the allowance of pollock TAC 
for the offshore component in the AI soon will be reached. Therefore, 
the Regional Director established a directed fishing allowance of 
29,272 mt after determining that 2,000 mt will be taken as incidental 
catch in directed fishing for other species in the AI. Consequently, 
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock by operators of 
vessels catching pollock for processing by the offshore component in 
the AI.
    Directed fishing standards for applicable gear types may be found 
in the regulations at Sec. 675.20(h).

Classification

    This action is taken under Sec. 675.20 and is exempt from review 
under E.O. 12866.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 13, 1995.
David S. Crestin,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-6548 Filed 3-13-95; 4:33 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of -- ) 

) 

MULE Engineering, Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W9124M-14-C-0014 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 60969, 60974, 60975 

Leonard W. Childs, Jr., Esq. 

Childs & Associates 

Savannah, GA 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

LTC Joseph J. Jankunis, JA 

Trial Attorney 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE HARTMAN 

The government admits and stipulates to entitlement in these three Board 

Rule 12.2 appeals.* The contracting officer has addressed quantum in both ASBCA 

Nos. 60969 and 60975 by providing the full requested relief in a unilateral contract 

Modification, No. POOOOI. ASBCA Nos. 60969 and 60975 are dismissed. ASBCA 

No. 60974 is sustained as to entitlement and returned to the parties for negotiation of 

quantum. 

Dated: 8 February 2017 

TERRENCE S. HARTMAN 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

* A decision under Board Rule 12.2 shall have no value as precedent, and in the 

absence of fraud, shall be final and conclusive and may not be appealed to the 

Board's appellate authority. 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 60969, 60974, 60975, 

Appeals of MULE Engineering, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's 

Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3643

Omega Environmental Technologies, Inc:

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 concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

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
#### PERRY KILLIAN v. WILSON CREEK QUARRY CO.

(Filed 8 December, 1926.)

Negligence — Master and Servant — Evidence—Safe Place to Work — “Dangerous Employment — Blasting.

Evidence that the foreman of the defendant failed to perform his duty to reasonably discover that all the dynamite loaded in drills for blasting had exploded, in the absence of the employee, and that plaintiff was injured by one of them unexpectedly exploding under circumstances not reasonably to have been anticipated by him, is sufficient to take the ease to the jury upon the issue of defendant’s actionable negligence, and deny its motion as of nonsuit. *Ooolc v. Furnace Oo.,*161 N. C., 39, cited as controlling.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Lane, J.,*at May Term, 1926, of Caldwell.

Civil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury.

On 28 June, 1924, the plaintiff, while in the employ of the defendant at its rock quarry in Caldwell County, spent the forenoon, as usual, drilling holes in large boulders preparatory to blasting. At noon, as was the custom, the holes were loaded with dynamite and exploded by other employees. It was their duty, or the duty of the foreman, Mr. Rhodes, to examine the rocks for unexploded dynamite before plaintiff went back to drilling in the afternoon. This was not done, or at least soon after the plaintiff began drilling other holes, following the noon blast, he struck an unexploded dynamite cap, which he could not see, and was severely injured.

On motion of the defendant, made at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, the court entered judgment as in case of nonsuit, from which the plaintiff appeals.

*Squires & Whisnant for plaintiff.*

*No counsel appearing for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.,

after stating the case: Reversed on authority of *Cook v. Furnace Co.,*161 N. C., 39.

Reversed.
Exhibit 99.4




The undersigned, being an officer of Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee (the "Trustee"), with respect to Merrill Lynch Municipal ABS, Inc. Prerefunded Municipal Certificates, Series 2 and Series 3, on whose behalf Merrill Lynch Municipal ABS Inc. has prepared this annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the "Annual Report"), certifies as follows:





1. The Trustee is the trustee under the trust agreement.





2. Based on my knowledge, for the periods included in the year covered by the Annual Report, the Trustee has fulfilled its obligations, including any servicing obligations, under the trust agreement.








/s/ Safet KalabaName:    Safet KalabaTitle:      Vice PresidentDate:      March 15, 2011
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4028 

To require certain public housing agencies to absorb port-in housing choice 

vouchers, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 7, 2022 

Ms. ERNST (for herself and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To require certain public housing agencies to absorb portin housing choice vouchers, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REQUIRING CERTAIN PUBLIC HOUSING AGEN4 CIES TO ABSORB PORT-IN VOUCHERS AND 

5 LIMITING BILLING INITIAL PUBLIC HOUSING 

6 AGENCIES BEYOND 12 MONTHS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 8(o) of the United States 

8 Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)) is amended 

9 by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(21) PORTABILITY OF VOUCHERS.— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4028 IS

1 ‘‘(A) DEFINITIONS.—In this paragraph— 

2 ‘‘(i) the term ‘covered public housing 

3 agency’ means a public housing agency 

4 that, in a given fiscal year, utilizes less 

5 than 95 percent of the budget authority 

6 available to the public housing agency; 

7 ‘‘(ii) the term ‘initial public housing 

8 agency’ has the meaning given the term 

9 ‘initial PHA’ in section 982.4 of title 24, 

10 Code of Federal Regulations, or any suc11 cessor regulation; and 

12 ‘‘(iii) the term ‘portable family’ means 

13 a family holding a voucher under this sub14 section that seeks to rent a dwelling unit 

15 outside of the jurisdiction of the initial 

16 public housing agency. 

17 ‘‘(B) REQUIREMENT.—A covered public 

18 housing agency that has jurisdiction over the 

19 area in which a portable family is seeking to 

20 use the voucher received from an initial public 

21 housing agency— 

22 ‘‘(i) shall notify the initial public 

23 housing agency whether the covered public 

24 housing agency will— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4028 IS

1 ‘‘(I) absorb the voucher by using 

2 funds of the covered public housing 

3 agency; or 

4 ‘‘(II) bill the initial public hous5 ing agency for a period of not more 

6 than 12 months; 

7 ‘‘(ii) shall make assistance payments 

8 to the portable family under an annual 

9 contributions contract entered into between 

10 the covered public housing agency and the 

11 Secretary; and 

12 ‘‘(iii) may not bill the initial public 

13 housing agency for the assistance pay14 ments described in clause (ii) for a period 

15 of more than 12 months beginning on the 

16 effective date of the initial billing.’’. 

17 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Effective on Decem18 ber 27, 2022, paragraph (21) of section 8(o) of the United 

19 States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)), as 

20 added by section 101(b)(2)(B) of division Q of the Con21 solidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260; 

22 134 Stat. 2462), is redesignated as paragraph (22). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

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

VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1146-96-2 JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR. NOVEMBER 26, 1996 RICHARD LESLIE EDMUNDS

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION Ingrid E. Olson, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General; Gregory Lucyk, Senior Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellant. B. Mayes Marks, Jr., for appellee.

Virginia Commonwealth University appeals from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission denying the University's request to suspend an award of compensation to Richard L. Edmunds. The University raises three issues, which collectively assert that Edmunds was ineligible for workers' compensation benefits because Edmunds was receiving "wages" pursuant to the

Workforce Transition Act. For the reasons cogently stated in Department of Transp. v. Swiney , ___ Va. App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (1996), we hold that payments made pursuant to the Workforce Transition Act are not "wages" for purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act. "The payments made [to Edmunds] pursuant to the [Workforce Transition

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - Act] agreement . . . were not for work performed or services rendered to [the University] in anticipation of compensation, but were to induce [Edmunds] not to perform work for [the University]." Id. at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___. Accordingly, we

affirm the commission's decision. Affirmed

.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4062

SPM Flow Control, Inc. DBA Weir SPM:

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-2403

Sellmark Corporation:

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-1760

GreenTech Environmental, 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.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. 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 product exclusion notice. 

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6355]



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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Under Review by Office of Management and Budget

Acting Agency Clearance Officer: David T. Copenhafer, (202) 942-8800
Upon written request copy available from: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, 
D.C. 20549
Extensions:
Form SE--File No. 270-289
Form ID--File No. 270-291
Form ET--File No. 270-290
Form TH--File No. 270-377

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), that the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') has requested extension of Forms SE, ID, 
ET, and TH. These forms are used by persons filing information with the 
Commission electronically on the EDGAR system.
    Form SE is used by electronic filers to submit exhibits in paper 
format. An estimated 2,000 filings on Form SE are made annually at an 
estimated .10 burden hours per response.
    Form ID is used to apply for EDGAR access codes. An estimated 7,000 
filings on Form ID are made annually at an estimated .15 burden hours 
per response.
    Form ET is used to transmit electronic format documents. An 
estimated 120 filings on Form ET are made annually at an estimated .25 
burden hours per response.
    Form TH is used to provide notification of a filer's reliance on a 
temporary hardship exemption. An estimated 200 filings on Form ET are 
made annually at an estimated .33 burden hours per response.
    Direct general comments to the Clearance Officer for the Securities 
and Exchange Commission at the address below. Direct any comments 
concerning the accuracy of the estimated average burden hours for 
compliance with SEC rules and forms to David T. Copenhafer, Acting 
Director, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange 
Commission, 450 Fifth Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20549, and SEC 
Clearance Office, Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction 
Project (3235-0327, 3235-0328, 3235-0329, and 3235-0425), Room 3208, 
New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20543.

    Dated: March 7, 1995.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-6355 Filed 3-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 19, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20755

Conference Calendar

SCOTT A. SAMFORD, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WARDEN C. S. STAPLES; R. CLEEVE, Correctional 

Officer V Extortion Officer; SERGEANT STEVENS,

Gang Intelligence; SHELIA TORRES, Correctional 

Officer IV; D. JOHNSON,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CV-351

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Scott A. Samford, Jr., Texas prisoner # 835644, appeals the

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for

failure to state a claim. He argues that his complaint alleged a

deprivation of property under the Due Process Clause.

Where a prisoner alleges, as Samford does, that the random

and unauthorized actions of a state officer deprived him of his

property, due process is satisfied if state law provides an
No. 06-20755

-2-

adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Sheppard v. Louisiana Bd.

of Parole, 873 F.2d 761, 763 (5th Cir. 1989). Texas has such a

remedy. See Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381, 383 (5th Cir.

1983). 

Samford also asserts that the district court erred by

refusing to allow him to add a defendant or engage in discovery

and that prison officials deliberately and illegally destroyed

his property. Samford has abandoned these claims by failing to

brief them adequately. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-

25 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing

Samford’s complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a

claim. See Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999).

Samford’s appeal lacks arguable merit and is dismissed as

frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,

219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The dismissal of the § 1983 complaint

and this dismissal count as two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir.

1996). Samford is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes

under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis

in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or

detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of

serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

JOSEPH F. McGOWAN, JR.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2483 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

Board File No. C1-12-1090

(Supreme Court of New Jersey,

M-175 September Term 2017)

Attorney Registration No. 44126

(Out of State)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of July, 2018, having failed to respond to a Notice and 

Order directing him to provide reasons against the imposition of reciprocal discipline, 

Joseph F. McGowan is transferred to disability inactive status in the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania. He shall comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.