alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Program United States 

Railroad Retirement Board 

Letter Office of Programs 

Quality Reporting Service Center 

Email: QRSC@rrb.gov 

Letter No. 2014-04 

Phone: (312) 751-4992 

Fax: (312) 751-7123 

Date: July 11, 2014 

TO: Certification Contact Officials 

SUBJECT: Crediting Service Months Due to Vacation Pay 

Please distribute this notice to all individuals within your organization who may need the 

information in connection with their work. 

The Office of General Counsel (OGC) of the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) issued legal 

opinion L-2014-31, Crediting Service Months Due to Vacation Pay on June 13, 2014, which 

discusses the crediting of a service month for an employee who is absent from work due to 

illness. 

When an employee receives vacation pay in a given month during a period of absence from 

work due to illness, the payment for that day is considered creditable compensation. The legal 

opinion quotes Section 1 of the Railroad Retirement Act (45 USC 231(h)(1)) in that “A payment 

made by an employer to an individual through the employer’s payroll shall be presumed...to be 

compensation for services rendered... as an employee of the employer in the period with 

respect to which the payment is made”. Board regulations also specify that creditable 

compensation includes vacation pay and state “Payments made to an employee with respect to 

vacation...shall be considered creditable compensation whether or not the employee takes the 

vacation...” (20 CFR §211.4). 

Therefore, based on the legal opinion, if an employee is credited with vacation pay during the 

period of absence from work due to illness, the employee is also entitled to receive service 

month credit for the period the vacation is credited. 

Information regarding the reporting of creditable service months due to vacation pay can be 

found in Part IV, Chapter 4 of the Employer Reporting Instructions or Part IV, Chapter 5 of the 

Labor Employer Reporting Instructions. 

If you have questions regarding the crediting of service months due to vacation pay, please 

contact the Quality Reporting Service Center at the email and/or telephone number shown 

above. 

UNITED STATES RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD - 1
@misc{1210036,
  author = {Karen Olsen},
  title = {Periodic Table of the Elements},
  year = {2022},
  month = {2022-10-05 04:10:00},
  publisher = {Special Publication (NIST SP), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935601},
  language = {en},
}
1 The Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-2009

___________ Farion Walker, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner * [UNPUBLISHED] of Social Security Administration, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: October 28, 2002 Filed: November 15, 2002

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Farion Walker appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. In his March 1998 application and later documents, Walker alleged disability since July 1997 from hypertension, chest pain, an ulcer,-2- migraines, a hearing loss, diabetes, and problems with his shoulder, thumb, sinuses, knees, and back. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Walker could perform his past relevant work as a security guard as he described the job requirements and as the job is performed in the national economy. We reject Walker’s challenge to the ALJ’s credibility findings, as the ALJ listed the factors from Polaski v. Heckler , 739 F.2d 1320, 1321-22 (8th Cir. 1984), and then gave multiple valid reasons for finding not entirely credible Walker’s statements as to the impact of his impairments on his ability to work. SeeLowe v. Apfel , 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir. 2000) (if adequately explained and supported, credibility findings are for ALJ to make; ALJ is not required to discuss methodically each Polaski factor, as long as he acknowledges and examines them). Walker also challenges the ALJ’s residual-functional-capacity (RFC) findings, contending he cannot do a good deal of walking and standing, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b) (2002) (defining light work), or perform light work on a daily basis. We disagree: none of Walker’s doctors gave him any restrictions during the relevant period, a nurse practitioner’s opinion as to his RFC on “bad” days appeared to be based primarily on Walker’s reports, and the ALJ’s RFC findings were more generous to Walker than those of the Social Security Administration reviewing physicians. See Pearsall v. Massanari , 274 F.3d 1211, 1217-18 (8th Cir. 2001) (it is ALJ’s responsibility to determine RFC based on medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s description of his limitations; ALJ must first evaluate claimant’s credibility). As to Walker’s remaining arguments, the ALJ adequately weighed the Department of Veterans Affairs’ disability determination, see Morrison v. Apfel , 146 F.3d 625, 628 (8th Cir. 1998), and properly considered the combined effects of Walker’s impairments, see Hajek v. Shalala , 30 F.3d 89, 92 (8th Cir. 1994).-3- The judgment is affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 559 

Expressing support for designation of the week of September 15, 2019, 

through September 21, 2019, as ‘‘Balance Awareness Week’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2019 

Ms. JOHNSON of Texas submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of the week of September 

15, 2019, through September 21, 2019, as ‘‘Balance 

Awareness Week’’. 

Whereas vestibular (inner-ear-balance) disorders are underdiagnosed and undertreated; 

Whereas as many as 35 percent of adults 40 years of age and 

older in the United States, approximately 69,000,000 

people in the United States, have experienced some form 

of vestibular dysfunction; 

Whereas 80 percent of people 65 years of age and older have 

experienced dizziness; 

Whereas vestibular disorder patients may consult 4 or more 

physicians and spend 50 months or more in their search 

for a diagnosis; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 559 IH 

Whereas the Vestibular Disorders Association celebrates 

‘‘Balance Awareness Week’’ to reduce the time it takes 

to diagnose a vestibular disorder by helping patients recognize their symptoms and encouraging them to seek 

help from a qualified vestibular specialist; and 

Whereas the week of September 15, 2019, through September 21, 2019, would be an appropriate week to designate as ‘‘Balance Awareness Week’’: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of ‘‘Balance 

3 Awareness Week’’; and 

4 (2) recognizes the importance of raising public 

5 awareness about vestibular disorders. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
14 00266 CR

The State of Texas vs. Raymond Smith Jr.

Angelina County, Texas 2014-0261

11-14-2014

11-31-2014

1,000

X Still working on it. 

7/24/15

9

7-13-15

936-671-4078

wmadison-lindsey@angelinacounty.net

Whitney Madison -Lindsey

Official Court Reporter

W.Madison-Lindsey

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 7/14/2015 8:02:45 AM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
April Ayers-Perez

P.O. Box 908

Lufkin, Texas 75902

936-632-5090

State of Texas

John Henry Tatum

111 N. Second St.

Lufkin, Texas

936-634-5594

Raymond Smith Jr
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DOMENIC D. MIELE a/k/a DOMENIC MIELE,

Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; EVERGRENE MASTER ASSOCIATION, 

INC.; Unknown Spouse of Domenic D. Miele a/k/a Domenic Miele; and 

Unknown Tenant(s) in Possession of the Subject Property,

Appellees.

No. 4D14-873

[July 15, 2015]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; John A. Frusciante, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502010CA017899XXXXMB.

Barry Carothers of BC Law, Stuart, for appellant.

Donna L. Eng, Michael K. Winston and Dean A. Morande of Carlton 

Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee Wells Fargo 

Bank, N.A.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant raises three issues in this mortgage foreclosure case. 

We find two issues have no merit, but we agree with the appellant that 

the trial court erred in its calculation of prejudgment interest.

The complaint alleged that the appellant defaulted on the note by 

failing to make the payment due on August 1, 2009, and all subsequent 

payments. The evidence introduced at trial indicated that the loan 

became due on August 1, 2009. However, the trial court calculated 

prejudgment interest from July 1, 2009. This was error. We reverse and 

remand for the trial court to recalculate prejudgment interest using the 

correct accrual date. We reject the appellant’s other arguments 

regarding calculation of prejudgment interest.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
2

CIKLIN, C.J., STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
S04Y1888.

#### IN THE MATTER OF SYBOL PATRICIA WILLIAMS.

(602 SE2d 638)

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on Sybol Patricia Williams’ Request for Reinstatement. On February 8, 1999, this Court accepted Williams’ petition for voluntary discipline and imposed a suspension from the practice of law for a period of six months from the date ofthe opinion, *see In the Matter of Williams,*270 Ga. 514 (511 SE2d 507) (1999). The Court also placed certain conditions on Williams before it would issue an opinion reinstating her to practice, including that she place herself under the jurisdiction of the State Bar Lawyer Assistance Program (“LAP”) for evaluation, treatment and monitoring of any condition that LAP deemed appropriate; that she obtain certification from LAP that, based on its review, she exhibits no symptom of any condition that would make her a danger to the public or her clients in the course of her practice of law; that she obtain certification from the Office of the General Counsel (“OGC”) that based on a review of its records there was no indication that subsequent to the acceptance of her voluntary petition she had engaged in any conduct making her a danger to her clients or the public; that she file a request for reinstatement with the Review Panel showing her compliance with all the requirements for readmission and that the OGC file the State Bar’s response to her request; and, after reviewing the record, that the Review Panel file a report and recommendation with this Court on her request for reinstatement. In her request for readmission, Williams shows that she has met the conditions for reinstatement set forth in *Williams,*supra. The State Bar has no objections to Williams’ request for readmission, and the Review Panel finds that she has complied with all the conditions precedent to reinstatement and recommends that the Court issue an opinion allowing her readmission to practice.

As it appears that Williams has met the procedural and legal requirements to be readmitted to the State Bar of Georgia, this Court hereby adopts the recommendation ofthe Review Panel and approves *393her petition for reinstatement. We therefore order that Sybol Patricia Williams be reinstated as an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Georgia.

Decided September 13, 2004.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Kellyn O. McGee, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*Petition for reinstatement accepted.*

*All the Justices concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 698 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 698

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the importance 
                of assisting justice-involved veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 14, 2019

Ms. Kendra S. Horn of Oklahoma (for herself, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Takano, 
 Mr. Brindisi, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Rose of New York, Ms. Torres Small of 
 New Mexico, Mr. Swalwell of California, Mr. Case, Mr. Trone, and Mr. 
  Larsen of Washington) submitted the following resolution; which was 
  referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the 
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the importance 
                of assisting justice-involved veterans.

Whereas almost 200,000 veterans are incarcerated;
Whereas more than half of justice-involved veterans have either a mental health 
        issue or a substance abuse disorder;
Whereas a substantial number of justice-involved veterans are homeless or at 
        risk for homelessness;
Whereas many veterans have difficulty finding work and reintegrating into 
        society after living in formalized environments;
Whereas veterans who get involved in the criminal justice system may be at a 
        higher risk for suicide;
Whereas justice-involved veterans in prison cannot receive medical services 
        furnished by the Department of Veterans Affairs, but may receive 
        outreach services;
Whereas justice-involved veterans have more specialized needs upon reentry into 
        society;
Whereas veterans treatment courts serve only veterans who are charged with 
        nonviolent crimes and are in need of mental health or substance abuse 
        treatment;
Whereas prosecutors work with defense attorneys to negotiate whether a veteran's 
        case should be heard in the treatment court, and veterans go through 
        counseling funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs;
Whereas once the veteran finishes the program, which can last from a few months 
        to years, all charges are dropped; and
Whereas only approximately 500 counties have veterans treatment courts: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the expansion of the veterans treatment court 
        program;
            (2) encourages deeper studies into the efficacy of these 
        programs and best practices; and
            (3) reaffirms the commitment of the House of 
        Representatives to helping all veterans reintegrating to 
        civilian life.
                                 <all>
```
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to North Korea 

On June 26, 2008, by Executive Order 13466, the President declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the current existence and risk of the proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula. The President also found that it was necessary to maintain certain restrictions with respect to North Korea that would otherwise have been lifted pursuant to Proclamation 8271 of June 26, 2008, which terminated the exercise of authorities under the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 1-44) with respect to North Korea.

Because the existence and risk of the proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, the national emergency declared on June 26, 2008, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond June 26, 2009. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466.

                        This notice shall be published in the                         *Federal Register*                        and transmitted to the Congress.                    

[FR Doc. E9-15270

Billing code 3195-W9-P
@article{1214736,
  author = {Michail Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis and Mia Au and Jochen Ballof and Robert Berger and Anastasia Borschevsky and Alexander Breier and Dmitry Budker and Luke Caldwell and Christopher Charles and Vincenzo Cirigliano and Jordy de Vries and David DeMille and Jacek Jacek Dobaczewski and Ch. E. Dullmann and Ephraim Eliav and Ephraim Eliav and Jonathan Engel and Mingyu Fan and Victor Flambaum and Alyssa Gaiser and Ronald Garcia Ruiz and Konstantin Gaul and Thomas Geisen and Alexander Gottberg and Gerald Gwinner and Reinhard Heinke and Steven Hoekstra and Jason Holt and Nicholas Hutzler and Andrew Jayich and Stephan Malbrunot-Ettenauer and Takayuki Miyagi and Iain Moore and Petr Navratil and Witold Nazarewicz and Gerda Neyens and Eric Norrgard and Nicholas Nusgart and Lukas Pasteka and Roy Ready and Moritz Pascal Reiter and Mikael Reponen and Sebastian Rothe and Marianna Safronova and Andrea Shindler and Jaideep Singh and Leonid Skripnikov and Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Shane Wilkins},
  title = {Opportunities for Fundamental Physics Research with Radioactive Molecules},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-09-18 17:09:13},
  publisher = {Journal of Physics G-Nuclear and Particle Physics},
  language = {en},
}
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 27, 2005 

129184 

ERIK D. LITTLE, 

Plaintiff, 

v 

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, 

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 SC: 129184 

 AGC: 2111/04 

Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

On order of the Court, the complaint for superintending control is considered. 

Relief is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested 

relief. 

s1219 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

December 27, 2005 

Clerk
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPT 07, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 06-11369

Non-Argument Calendar

 

D. C. Docket No. 04-22640-CV-AJ

EUGENIO GARCIA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PORT ROYALE TRADING COMPANY, INC.,

LOUISE LYNCH,

OASIS OUTSOURCING, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

 

(September 7, 2006)

Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Under the FWW, which is typically used for employees whose hours fluctuate from week 1

to week, the workweek is still capped at 40 hours, and any work in excess of 40 hours is considered

overtime for which an employee must be paid. Employees are compensated at a fixed salary per

week regardless of the number of hours worked (whether above or below 40 hours), and at one-half

(or 50%) the regular rate, instead of one-and-one-half times (or 150%) for each hour worked in

excess of 40 hours.

2

This is an appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment

in favor of the employer, Port Royale Trading Company, Inc., and others (“the

defendants”) in Eugenio Garcia’s claim brought under the Fair Labor Standards

Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Essentially, Garcia contends that the

defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay him overtime wages pursuant to

the actual requirements, and that he was entitled to time-and-one-half for each

hour worked in excess of 40 hours, rather than one-half-time. 

The FLSA generally requires employers to compensate their employees at

one-and-one-half times the employee’s usual hourly rate, or “regular rate,” for

each hour worked over 40 hours. Davis v. Friendly, 2003 WL 21488682, *1 (11th

Cir. 2003) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1)). But, the FLSA’s implementing

regulations permit employers to use alternative compensation schemes, like the

fluctuating workweek method (“FWW”), to suit various employment needs. 29 1

C.F.R. § 778.114.
3

In granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the district court

correctly found that Garcia failed to show that he did not have a clear

understanding of the FWW method of compensation. Moreover, the record

demonstrates that Garcia was properly paid overtime under the FWW method of

compensation. Despite his claims of not understanding how he was paid due to

his alleged inability to understand the English language, either written or spoken,

he did understand how much money he was paid each week. He also knew that

his hours fluctuated each week and that once he executed the fixed salary for

fluctuating hours agreement, the manner in which he was compensated had

changed. For almost three years after the execution of the agreement, Garcia

began receiving a base salary regardless of the number of hours he worked and

received additional half-time for each hour over 40. Accordingly, for the abovestated reasons, we conclude that the district court correctly granted summary

judgment in favor of the defendants.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 13.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

CFO
Certification

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,
United States Code) in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of BHP Billiton Plc and BHP Billiton Limited, (the Companies) for the annual period ended 30 June 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officer of the Companies, hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



|(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 Companies.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                |  |                        
|--------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Graham Kerr
|Name:           |  | Graham Kerr            
|Title:          |  | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:           |  | 25 September 2014      

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to
the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.