alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Hon. E. G. Garvey Opinion NO. o-1728 

County Auditor ,Re: Authority of commissioners' court 

Baxar County to employ special counsel in a particular 

San Antonio, Texas case and to amend budget to provide compensation for such special counsel. 

Dear Sir: 

In your letter of November 22, 1939, you request 

our opinion as to whether the commissioners' court may legally 

employ special counsel to institute and maintain a suit 

against the county tax collector for the recovery of taxes 

allegedly collected by him and not paid over to the county. 

In case our answer to such,question is an affirmative one, 

you further request our opinion as to whether the situation 

is such a one as can be classified as an emergency under the 

budget law ao as TV permit the cnmmis~ioners~ mart to amend 

the budget to provideithe funds forthe:pajrlnent bf special 

counsel. 

While under Article 339, Revised Civil Statutes, 

and as held in Lattimore vs. Tarrant County, 124 S.W.205, it 

is the duty of the county attorney to represent the county in 

suits of this character, it was held by the Supreme Court in 

the case of Adams vs. Seagler, 112 Tex. 583, that the commissioners' court may legally employ special counsel to assist 

the county attorney in bringing and prosecuting the same. Our 

answer to your first question, therefore, is that the commissioners' court may employ special counsel to assist your district attorney in the prosecution of the contemplated action. 

Since your letter indicates that your district attorney is 

willing to participate to the extent that other duties will 

permit, we feel that this constitutes a sufficient answer to 

your first question. 

It is provided in Article 689a-11, Vernon's Civil 

Statutes, "that emergency expenditures, in case of grave public necessity, to meet unusual and unforeseen conditions which 

could not, by reasonably diligent thought and attention, have 

been included in the original budget, may from time to time be 

authorized by the court as amendments to the original budget." 

This statute gives.to the commissioners* court, within reasonable limitations, the power to determine whether a case is one 
Hon. E. G. Garvey, page 2 

of grave public necessity and whether the same could have 

been included in the original budget by reasonably diligent 

thought and attention. We can answer your second question 

only by saying that the question is one of fact to be passed 

upon by the commissioners court as to whether the case at 

hand is one of grave public necessity within the meaning of 

that part of the statute permitting the amendment of the 

original budget in certain cases. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

By /s/ Glenn R. Lewis 

Glenn R. Lewis, Assistant 

“i’F;V=$; 7G39 

;TOR&! GEN&AL OF TEXAS 

GRL:jm:wb
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-10315

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RODNEY TERRELL JACKSON, 

Defendant- Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-00020-AW-GRJ-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 24-10315 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 07/10/2024 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 24-10315

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Megan Saillant, appointed counsel for Rodney Jackson in 

this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further 

representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the 

record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the 

appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the record 

reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw 

is GRANTED, and Jackson’s revocation of supervised release and 

sentence are AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 24-10315 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 07/10/2024 Page: 2 of 2
### §2269. Further penalties

Any director or officer, or former director or officer of a System institution, or any other person, against whom there is outstanding and effective any notice or order (which is an order which has become final) served upon such director, officer, or other person under section 2264 or 2265 of this title, and who (1) participates in any manner in the conduct of the affairs of the institution involved, or directly or indirectly solicits or procures, or transfers or attempts to transfer, or votes or attempts to vote, any proxies, consents, or authorizations in respect of any voting rights in such institution, or (2) without the prior written approval of the Farm Credit Administration, votes for a director, serves or acts as a director, officer, or employee of any System institution, shall upon conviction be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(Pub. L. 92–181, title V, §5.33, as added Pub. L. 99–205, title II, §204, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1701.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective thirty days after Dec. 23, 1985, see section 401 of Pub. L. 99–205, set out as an Effective Date of 1985 Amendment note under section 2001 of this title.
#### WARD v. HILLHAVEN, INC.

No. 64P90

Case below: 97 N.C.App. 143

Motion by defendants to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 5 April 1990. Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 April 1990.
-  Home 
-  Hazmat 

# In This Section

                      -  Hazardous Materials Standards & Rulemaking Overview 
                      -  International Program Overview 
                      -  PHMSA's Online CFR (oCFR) 
                      -  Rulemakings                          -  Overview 
                        -  Recently Published Rulemakings 
                        -  Archived Hazardous Materials Rulemakings (pre-1995) 
                      -  Petitions for Rulemaking 
                      -  Interpretations 
                      -  Regulations 
                      -  Preemption Determinations                          -  Overview 
                        -  Inconsistency Rulings 
                      -  Notices and Advisory Bulletins 
                      -  Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee 
                      -  Hazardous Materials Information Center 

## Related Documents

                  -                                          PD-28R Decision                   

# PD-28(R): Town of Smithtown, NY requirements for permits and certificates of fitness for delivery of LPG, including fees and inspections
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 12096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4966]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2106-059]


McCloud-Pit Project; Notice of Availability of the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Mccloud-Pit Hydrolectric Project

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) 
regulations contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (18 CFR 
Part 380 [FERC Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897]), the Office of Energy 
Projects has reviewed the application for license for the McCloud-Pit 
Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2106), located on the McCloud and Pit 
Rivers in Shasta County, California and has prepared a final 
environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project. The project 
occupies 1651.4 acres of federal lands administered by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture-Forest Service.
    The final EIS contains staff's analysis of the applicant's proposal 
and the alternatives for relicensing the McCloud-Pit Project. The final 
EIS documents the views of governmental agencies, non-governmental 
organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the license 
applicant, and Commission staff.
    Copies of the final EIS are available for review at the Commission 
or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, 
using the ``e-Library'' link. Enter the docket number, excluding the 
last three digits, to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC 
Online Support at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e6a0a3b4a5a9888a8f8883b5939696899492a680839485c8818990"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="90d6d5c2d3dffefcf9fef5c3e5e0e0ffe2e4d0f6f5e2f3bef7ffe6">[email protected]</span></a> or toll-free at (866) 208-
3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and 
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, 
contact FERC Online Support.
    For further information, please contact Emily Carter at (202) 502-
6512 or at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#33565e5a5f4a1d50524147564173555641501d545c45"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e3868e8a8f9acd808291978691a385869180cd848c95">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: February 25, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-4966 Filed 3-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7148

ROBERT LOUIS GARRETT, JR., a/k/a Chubby, a/k/a Chubb, a/k/a Tru, a/k/a 

Kweli, a/k/a Justice,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CHAD BINKLEY; UNKNOWN OFFICERS, From 9 May 2015 Attack,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock 

Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge; Paige Jones Gossett, Magistrate 

Judge. (0:18-cv-01416-CMC-PJG)

Submitted: October 15, 2019 Decided: October 18, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Louis Garrett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Louis Garrett, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order affirming the 

magistrate judge’s order and dismissing Garrett’s motions to compel and for sanctions and 

the magistrate judge’s order denying without prejudice Garrett’s motion to compel 

discovery. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 

(2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The 

orders Garrett seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or 

collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED
§ 700.453 Definitions. ( a ) *Act* means Pub. L. 93-531 (88 Stat. 1712, 25 U.S.C. 640d), as amended.
( b ) *Applicant* means with respect to this subpart, any applicant as defined under § 700.457(c) or § 700.459(b).
( c ) *Business* means any lawful activity, except a nonprofit organization, that is— ( 1 ) Conducted primarily for the purchase, sale, lease and/or rental of personal and/or real property, and/or for the manufacture, processing, and/or marketing of products, commodities, and/or any other personal property; or
( 2 ) Conducted primarily for the sale of services to the public.
( d ) *Commissioners* means the three Commissioners of the Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Commission.
( e ) *In-kind contribution* means a noncash contribution as described in attachment F of OMB Circular A-102.
( f ) *Local government* means a local unit of government including specifically a county, municipality, city, town, township, local public authority, special district, council of governments, and other regional or interstate entity, or any agency or instrumentality of a local government.
( g ) *Nonprofit organization* means a corporation, partnership, individual, or other public or private entity that is engaged in a lawful business, professional, or instructional activity on a nonprofit basis and that has established its nonprofit status under applicable Federal, State, or Tribal law.
( h ) *Related facilities* means any building or structure normally found in a community and includes but is not limited to water, sewer and electrical lines, community centers, health centers and clinics, roads, and business establishments.
( i ) *Services* means activities relating to human development including, but not limited to, educational and job training, mental health counseling, health care, and technical assistance in business administration, agriculture, and home economics.
( j ) *Tribe* means the Navajo Chapter or the Hopi Village.
( k ) *Tribal subdivision* means a Navajo Chapter or a Hopi Village.
###### Editorial Note on Part 900

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

#### § 900.245 What obligation does the Indian tribe or tribal organization have with respect to returning property that was used in the operation of the retroceded program?

On the effective date of any retrocession, the Indian tribe or tribal organization shall, at the request of the Secretary, deliver to the Secretary all requested property and equipment provided under the contract which have a per item current fair market value, less the cost of improvements borne by the Indian tribe or tribal organization, in excess of $5,000 at the time of the retrocession.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Powers & Mansfield Company, Respondent, v. Henry Schneider, as Commissioner of Public Works of the City of Troy, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
# C_2006212EN.01001401.xml

| 2.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/14

---

Appeal brought on 6 June 2006 by Yedas Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 March 2006 in Case T-367/03: Yedas Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AS v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-255/06 P)

(2006/C 212/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Yedaş Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (represented by: S. Sariibrahimoglu and R. Sinner, avocats)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in the matter of Yedas v. Commission and Council (Case T-367/03) in its entirety, |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in the matter of Yedas v. Commission and Council (Case T-367/03) in its entirety,

| — | Refer the case of Yedas back to the Court of First Instance to review the case, |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case of Yedas back to the Court of First Instance to review the case,

| — | Grant an oral procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant an oral procedure,

| — | Award costs to the Applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Award costs to the Applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law by failing to give the Association Agreement between Turkey and the European Economic Community (‘the Ankara Agreement’) and Protocols any proper legal significance or effect, contrary to the settled case-law of the European Court of Justice and by wrongly determining that the principles and rules contained in the Ankara Agreement and protocols are not such as to constitute legal norms against which acts of the Community institutions can be measured. According to the Applicant the provisions of the Ankara Agreement are directly applicable and capable of conferring rights upon individuals.

The Applicant also submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law by failing to examine the argument that the Republic of Turkey was eligible to be treated, in the matter of assistance, on a par with States such as Spain, Portugal and Greece and by holding that the Community institutions had no duty to act with respect to the position of Greece in respect of allocation of financial support to Turkey.

Finally the Applicant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in its legal assessment that there was no causal link between the alleged unlawful conduct of the Community institution and the alleged damage suffered.

---
§ 101.6 Cell cultures. When used in conjunction with or in reference to cell cultures, which may be referred to as tissue cultures, the following terms shall mean: ( a ) *Batches of primary cells.* A pool of original cells derived from normal tissue up to and including the 10th subculture.
( b ) *Cell line.* A pool of cells which are 11 or more subcultures from the tissue of origin.
( c ) *Subculture.* Each flask to flask transfer or passage regardless of the number of cell replications.
( d ) *Master Cell Stock (MCS).* The supply of cells of a specific passage level from which cells for production of biologics originate.
[38 FR 8426, Apr. 2, 1973, as amended at 40 FR 45419, Oct. 2, 1975; 49 FR 22624, May 31, 1984]
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Partners with University of Kentucky to Evaluate Impacts of Recent 

Investments to Strengthen the U.S. Food Supply Chain

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27, 2023 – The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development 

today announced that it is partnering with the University of Kentucky to evaluate impacts of the agency’s loan 

and grant programs that support regional food systems and strengthen the U.S food supply chain.

Since 2022, USDA has invested $1.15 billion to transform the American food supply chain through the Food 

Supply Chain Guaranteed Loan Program, the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, the Meat and Poultry 

Processing Expansion Program and the Meat and Poultry Intermediary Lending Program.

USDA Rural Development is awarding $750,000 through a cooperative agreement to University of Kentucky 

Research Foundation.

Through this agreement, the Community and Economic Development of Initiative of Kentucky (CEDIK) and 

the Food Connection within the Martin-Gatton College of Agriculture, Food, and Environment will measure 

USDA Rural Development programs, including the four programs listed above. They will focus on how well 

the programs are creating market opportunities for small- and mid-sized farmers and independent agricultural 

businesses throughout the food supply chain.

Through this partnership, USDA will identify how the investments to support local and regional food supply 

chains have:

• Created a more resilient, diverse and secure food system.

• Resulted in more fair and accessible food systems with more and better market opportunities.

• Led to more economically viable farm and food businesses and healthy rural communities.

The findings will help guide USDA’s future investments in the food supply chain. 

Today’s announcement answers President Biden’s call to federal agencies to use the best science and data 

available for decision-making and gather the best evidence to tackle complex policy challenges. 

To subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit GovDelivery subscriber page.

###

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
{"agency":"PRC","generated":"2021-01-11 16:31:45","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"},{"label":"2018","value":"2018"},{"label":"2019","value":"2019"},{"label":"2020","value":"2020"}],"value":"2021"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["PRC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["8"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["9"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":[" "]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2021","quarter":"Q1"}
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Nigel P. Ekern,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Annual
Report of Clarus  Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that  information  contained  in such Annual  Report on
Form 10-K fairly presents in all material  respects the financial  condition and
results of operations of Clarus Corporation.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

         Date:  March 9, 2006
                                               By:  /s/ Nigel P. Ekern
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Nigel P. Ekern
                                                    Chief Administrative Officer