alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 304.29 Security of systems of records. ( a ) *Administrative and physical controls.* The agency will have administrative and physical controls to prevent unauthorized access to its systems of records, to prevent unauthorized disclosure of records, and to prevent physical damage to or destruction of records. The stringency of these controls corresponds to the sensitivity of the records that the controls protect. At a minimum, these controls are designed to ensure that: ( 1 ) Records are protected from public view;
( 2 ) The area in which records are kept is supervised during business hours in order to prevent unauthorized persons from having access to them;
( 3 ) Records are inaccessible to unauthorized persons outside of business hours; and
( 4 ) Records are not disclosed to unauthorized persons or under unauthorized circumstances in oral, written or any other form.
( b ) *Restrictive procedures.* The agency will implement practices and procedures that restrict access to records to only those individuals within the agency who must have access to those records in order to perform their duties and that prevent inadvertent disclosure of records.
Order entered March 12, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01480-CV

PLANO AMI LP, ET AL, Appellants

V.

ERWIN CRUZ, M.D., Appellee

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10-16274-E

ORDER

We GRANT appellants’ March 8, 2013 joint motion to re-set the briefing schedule. 

Appellants shall file their brief on or before April 3, 2013.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS

JUSTICE
GeraldC.Mann 

Attorney General 

Honorable John R. Shook 

Criminal District Attorney 

San Antonio, Texas 

Dear Sir: Attention: Abe San Miguel 

Opinion No. O-3827 

Re: Duty of the county clerk 

with reference to accepting and recording deeds 

with certain restrcitive 

clauses. 

We quote as follows from your recent letter requesting a legal opinion from this department: 

"The Consul General of Mexico has asked us 

to secure an opinion from you concerning the legality of restrictive clauses contained in deeds whereby the sale of real estate in the State of Texas to 

Mexicans and the possession thereof by Mexicans are 

prohibited. 

"If such a clause as quoted above is illegal 

in being contrary to public policy, would the County Clerk be justified in refusing to records an instrument containing such a restriction?" 

We have concluded that it would be improper for this 

department to write upon the first question involving the legality of certain restrictive clauses in deeds. This matter is 

peculiarly one of private rights. We have consistently deemed 

it our duty, under the statutes, to refrain from writing upon 

such questions. 

This is accentuated by the necessary answer to your 

second question. It is the duty of the county clerk to record 
Honorable John R. Shook, Page 2 

such deeds irrespective of the legality or illegality of the 

restrictive clauses mentioned. 

It is well settled that it is the duty of the county clerk to accept for recordation onstruments delivered to 

him for such purpose which have been acknowledged or approved 

according to law. Articles 6626 and 6631; 36 Tex. Jur. 417. 

It was early declared in the case of Brockenbourough v. Melton, 

55 Tex. 493, that: 

"The clerk of the county court was required 

to record all instruments of writing authorized 

and required to be recorded." 

In First National Bank v. McElroy, 

the court declared that: 

"The duties of a recording officer 

ministerial." 

112 S. W. 801, 804, 

are 

The county clerk may be compelled by mandamus to record such instruments. In Hollis v. Parkland Corp., 40 S.W. 

(2d) 53, this was done, the Commission of Appeals pointing out: 

"The plat appears to be duly acknowledged 

as required by law, and bears the approval of 

the city planning commissioner. This is all 

that the Act calls for as a prerequisite to the 

recording of the plat in the office of the county clerk. * * *." 

Moreover the clerk is liable for a penalty or for damages if he fails to preform his statutory duties with respect to 

the recording of instruments delivered to him for such purpose. 

See Article 6652; Carlisle and CO. v. King, 133 S. W. 241: 36 

Tex. Jur. 426, Para. 24. 

It is therefore the duty of the county clerk to accept 

deeds for recordation containing the restrictive clauses described 

in your letter notwithstanding any questions which might arise appertaining to their legality. 

Yours very truly 

Approved Aug. 15, 1941 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

/s/ Gerald C. Mann 

ArrImmYm OF TEXAS 

zcs:Rs 

By /s/ Zollie C. Steaklay 

Zollie C. Steakley 

Assistant 

Approved:Opinion Catmittee 

By: BWB,Chai=
| **Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Unaudited) (Parenthetical) (USD $)In Millions** | Jun. 30, 2011 | Dec. 31, 2010 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------|
| **Current assets:**                                                                      | Â             | Â             |
| Accounts receivable, net allowance for doubtful accounts                                 | $ 21.5        | $ 22.7        |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
A valuation allowance for trade and other receivables due to an Entity within one year (or the normal operating cycle, whichever is longer) that are expected to be uncollectible.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher SEC -Name Regulation S-X (SX) -Number 210 -Section 02 -Paragraph 4 -Article 5
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_AllowanceForDoubtfulAccountsReceivableCurrent**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**credit**Period Type:**instant |
| X                                                                                                                                                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_AssetsCurrentAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
§ 1001.5 Application review and selection process for negotiations for funding agreements. Upon acceptance into the applicant pool, the OSG will assign to each tribe or consortium a ranking relative to other applicants based upon the date the OSG receives the complete application package. This ranking will constitute a master list that will be maintained and updated on a continuous basis from year to year. When receipt dates are the same for two or more applications, several other factors will be considered in determining the placement of the tribe or consortium on the list. These factors are identified in priority order as follows: ( a ) Designation by the Congress through report language that a tribe should be considered for participation. These designations will be considered based upon the actual language of the report.
( b ) Documentation of OSG sanctioning of the tribe's self-governance planning and subsequent evidence of actual planning by the tribe.
( c ) Submission of a completed planning or negotiation grant application in the previous year.
( d ) A signed agreement pursuant to the Indian Health Service (IHS) self-governance project.
( e ) Receipt of a planning grant awarded by the IHS.
Grandkid Scams

Here’s how they work:

You get a call: “Grandma, I need money for bail.” Or money for a medical bill. 

Or some other kind of trouble. The caller says it’s urgent — and tells you to 

keep it a secret. 

But is the caller who you think it is? Scammers are good at pretending to be 

someone they’re not. They can be convincing: sometimes using information 

from social networking sites, or hacking into your loved one’s email account, 

to make it seem more real. And they’ll pressure you to send money before 

you have time to think.

Here’s what you can do:

1. Stop. Check it out. Look up your grandkid’s phone number yourself, or 

call another family member. 

2. Pass this information on to a friend. You may not have gotten one of 

these calls, but chances are you know someone who will get one — if 

they haven’t already.
PassitON Want to know more? Sign up for 

scam alerts at ftc.gov/subscribe.

Federal Trade Commission | ftc.gov/PassItOn

Please Report Scams

If you spot a scam, please report it to the Federal 

Trade Commission.

•	 Call the FTC at 1-877-FTC-HELP 

(1-877-382-4357) or TTY 1-866-653-4261

•	 Go online: ftc.gov/complaint

Your complaint can help protect other people. 

By filing a complaint, you can help the FTC’s 

investigators identify the imposters and stop them 

before they can get someone’s hard-earned money. 

It really makes a difference.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 1416

MARILYN JACKSON,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. CHRISTOPHER C. MILLER , Acting Secretary, Department of Defense,
Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Liam O’Grady , Senior District Judge. ( 1:19

- cv
- 00659

- LO

- TCB )

Submitted : November 1 3 , 2020 Decided: December 2, 2020

Before AGEE and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judge s , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Amos N. Jones , AMOS JONES LAW FIRM , Washington, D.C., for Appellant. G. Zachary Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Hugham Chan, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Marilyn Jackson ap peals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to
D efendant in Jackson’s employment action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jackson v. Esper , No. 1:19

- cv
- 00659

- LO

- TCB (E.D. Va. Mar. 11 & 12, 2020) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
### **CHAPTER 388—PROCUREMENT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT PROGRAM**

Sec. 1

4951.
Definitions.
4952.
Purposes.
4953.
Regulations.
4954.
Cooperative agreements.
4955.
Funding.
4956.
Distribution.
4957.
Subcontractor information.
4958.
Authority to provide certain types of technical assistance.
4959.
Advancing small business growth.
4960.
[Reserved].
4961.
Administrative and other costs.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2021**—Pub. L. 117–81, div. A, title XVII, §1701(m)(3), Dec. 27, 2021, 135 Stat. 2145, amended Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1872(a)(1)(B), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4287, which added this analysis, by generally revising the items to be inserted. Directory language amending section "1872(a)(B)" of Pub. L. 116–283 was executed as if it had referred to section "1872(a)(1)(B)" to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Notice of Cost-Free Federal Procurement Technical Assistance in Connection With Registration of Small Business Concerns on Procurement Websites of the Department of Defense

Pub. L. 115–91, div. A, title XVII, §1707, Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1809, provided that:

"(a) In General.—The Secretary of Defense shall establish procedures to ensure that any notice or direct communication regarding the registration of a small business concern on a website maintained by the Department of Defense relating to contracting opportunities contains information about cost-free Federal procurement technical assistance services that are available through a procurement technical assistance program established under [former] chapter 142 of title 10, United States Code [see chapter 388 of this title].

"(b) Small Business Concern Defined.—The term 'small business concern' has the meaning given such term under section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632)."

1  Editorially supplied.
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:56 AM

To: 'dennis@brownchairphotography.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Request for Additional Information: Dennis Bernhard (FAA-2015-2472)

August 27, 2015 

Dear Mr. Bernhard: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-2472). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s) (i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the 

proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including 

payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s). 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If 

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by September 

10, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999.
### [SUBCHAPTER I—REPEALED]
`[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 114 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                  House Calendar No. 21
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 114

                          [Report No. 106-55]

  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 975) to provide for a 
  reduction in the volume of steel imports, and to establish a steel 
              import notification and monitoring program.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 1999

    Mr. Dreier, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 975) to provide for a 
  reduction in the volume of steel imports, and to establish a steel 
              import notification and monitoring program.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the 
House the bill (H.R. 975) to provide for a reduction in the volume of 
steel imports, and to establish a steel import notification and 
monitoring program. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. 
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to 
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) ninety minutes of 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion 
to recommit.
                                     





                                                  House Calendar No. 21

106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 114

                          [Report No. 106-55]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 975) to provide for a 
  reduction in the volume of steel imports, and to establish a steel 
              import notification and monitoring program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 16, 1999

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

# RECEIVED JUL 1 52016 HEARING DOCKET

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO. FAA-2016-4268 PETER HANTZ COMPANY FAA CASENO. 2012S0700041 Respondent Judge Douglas M. Rawald

Complainant and Respondent's Joint Section 13.217/Rule 26(t) Report
I. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.217 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f), a teleconference was held on June 27, 2015, and was attended by (I) Ryan Landers, counsel for Complainant, and (2) Timothy I. McCulloch, counsel for Respondent. 2. The parties have discussed settlement, but have not reached a settlement. Settlement discussions will continue. 3. The parties will exchange the discovery disclosures required byRule 26(a)(1) by August 2, 2016. 4. The parties agree that initial discovery requests will be made by October 6, 2016. The parties will have 30 days to respond to initial discoveryrequests. 5. The parties agree that follow-up discoveryrequests will bemade byNovember 21, 2016. The parties will have 30 days to respond to follow-up discoveryrequests. 6. Discovery will close on December 30, 2016. 7. Any objections to discovery requests must be made to the requesting party within ten days ofreceiving the discoveryrequest.8. The parties agree that all dispositive motions must be filed by January 30, 2017. The parties agree thatresponses to dispositive motions will be filed byFebruary 21,2017. The parties propose April 12, 2017 as a date for a telephonic hearing on any filed motions. 9. The parties agree that they will exchange witness list and exhibits at least 30 days before thehearing date. I0. The parties proposethe following three trial dates in Phoenix, AZ:
a. May22-26, 2017; b. June 5-9, 2017; and
c. June 12-16, 2017. Respectfully submittedthis

# Jr:_ dayofJuly, 2016.



### [3~(\ **Go]db~**



# 1tJ't·



# :z;{.___~-for RyanM. Landers Counsel for ComplainantCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Joint Section 13.217/Rule 26(J) Report was sent via the following methods: CERTIFIED MAIL: Federal AviationAdministration (original and one copy) 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building- Suite 2W1000 CERTIFIED MAIL & FAX: The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJerseyAvenue, SE (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 facsimile: (202) 366-7536 Timothy I. McCulloch, Esq. Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP 2375 E. CamelbackRd. Suite 750 Phoenix, AZ85016 facsimile: (602) 631-4404

·51.1ll.M\.S ·stant Office of e Regional Counsel

Dated (one copy)

(one copy)
# C_2013314EN.01000101.xml

| 29.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 314/01

| Date of adoption of the decision | 6.9.2013 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | SA.37314 (13/N) |
| Member State | Slovenia |
| Region | — | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Rescue aid in favour to Probanka |
| Legal basis | Act Determing the Measures of the Republic of Slovenia to Strengthen Bank Stability
  Banking act |
| Type of measure | Individual aid | Probanka |
| Objective | Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy |
| Form of aid | Guarantee |
| Budget | Overall budget: EUR 490 million |
| Intensity | 100 % |
| Duration (period) | From 6.9.2013 |
| Economic sectors | Financial and insurance activities |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ministry of Finance |
| Župančičeva 3 |
| SI-1000 Ljubljana |
| SLOVENIJA |

Date of adoption of the decision

6.9.2013

Reference number of State Aid

SA.37314 (13/N)

Member State

Slovenia

Region

—

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Rescue aid in favour to Probanka

Legal basis

Act Determing the Measures of the Republic of Slovenia to Strengthen Bank Stability

Banking act

Type of measure

Individual aid

Probanka

Objective

Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy

Form of aid

Guarantee

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 490 million

Intensity

100 %

Duration (period)

From 6.9.2013

Economic sectors

Financial and insurance activities

Name and address of the granting authority

Ministry of Finance

Župančičeva 3

SI-1000 Ljubljana

SLOVENIJA

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
§ 1000.433 When and how must a Tribe/Consortium appeal an adverse pre-award decision? ( a ) If a Tribe/Consortium wishes to exercise its appeal rights under § 1000.432(b)(1), it must make a written request for review to the appropriate bureau head within 30 days of receiving the initial adverse decision. In addition, the Tribe/Consortium may request the opportunity to have a meeting with appropriate bureau personnel in an effort to clarify the matter under dispute before a formal decision by the bureau head.
( b ) The written request for review should include a statement describing its reasons for a review, with any supporting documentation, or indicate that such a statement or documentation will be submitted within 30 days. A copy of the request must also be sent to the Director of the Office of Self-Governance.
( c ) If the initial decision was made by the bureau head, any appeal shall be directed to the appropriate Assistant Secretary. If a Tribe does not request a review within 30 days of receipt of the decision, the initial decision will be final for the Department.
H. Res. 153

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

April 29, 1999.

Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 5.

Section 2(f)(1) of House Resolution 5, One Hundred

Sixth Congress, agreed to January 6, 1999 (as amended by

House Resolution 129, One Hundred Sixth Congress, agreed

to March 24, 1999), is amended by striking ‘‘April 30, 1999’’

and inserting ‘‘May 14, 1999’’.

Attest:

Clerk.