alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# ORIGINA L ZUCKER T SCOUT T ft-RASENBERGER, LL. P ATTORNfV S A l I A W 88 8 Seventeent h Street , NV y Washington , D C 20006-550 9 Telephon e 1202 ] 298-866 0 Fa x 1202 ] 542-068 5

wwwzsrlawco m

NATHANIE

LP . BREED , JR . DIREC T DIA L(202 ) 973-791 9 npbreed@zsrUw.coi n Augus t 6 , 201 0 B Y HAN D DELIVER Y Mr . Pau l L . Gretch , Chie f Offic e o f International Aviatio n DEPARTMENT O FTRANSPORTATIO N 1200 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . - Roo mW86-31 6 Washington , D C 2059 0

Re : Dominica n Republi c Civi l Aviatio n Boar d5^ ^ Freedo m Reciprocit y Certification , Docke t OST-2006-2426 9 Dea r Mr . Gretch : Enclose dherewit

hfo r filing i n Docke t

OS T 2006-2426 9 are th e original and on e cop y o f

th e 5 * an d7 * Freedo mTraffi c Right s Reciprocity Certification , date d Jul y 29 , 2010 , signe dan dissue db y th e Dominican Republi c Civi l Aviatio n Board . Th e enclose dCertificatio n confirm s th e polic y o f th e Dominican Republi c t o grant , on th e basi s o f

reciprocity , t o any ai r

carrier designate db y th e Unite dState s o f America , authorit

y to carr y 5 * an d7 * freedomtraffi c o n schedule do r non-schedule d flights servin g th e Dominican Republic , whic hare in conformit y wit hth e Ai r Transpor t Agreemen t

betwee n th e Governmen t o f th e Unite dState s o f

Americ aand th e Government

o f th e Dominican Republic , signe do n Jul y 19 , 1949 , a s amended .

Sincerely , 

# o Nathanie l P . Breed , Jr . Zucker t Scout t & Rasenberger , L.L.P . Counse l fo

r PAWA Dominicana , C.A . Enclosure

# ORIGINA L

PRESIDENCI A D E L A REPUBLIC A DOMINICAN A 

### JUNT AD E AVIACIO N CIVI L 'YEA R O F NATIONA L ECONOMI C REACTIVATION ' 230 5 Santo Domingo , D.N . Jul y29' ^ 2010 . Mr . Pau l Gretc h Directo r Offic e o f Internationa l Aviatio n U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , S.E . Roo m W86-31 6 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Dea rMr . Gre j

h : Th e Dominica n Republi cCivi l Aviatio n Authorit yhereb yconfirms , tha t i t wil l grant , o n th e basi s o f reciprocity , t o an yai rcarrie rdesignate d b yth e Unite d State s o f America , th e righ t t o conduc t fift h an d sevent h freedo m traffi cright s o n schedule d o rnon schedule d basis , whic h ar e i n conformit yt o th e Ai rTranspor t Agreemen t betwee n th e Governmen t o f th e Unite d State s o f Americ a an d th e Governmen t o f th e Dominica n Republic , signe d o n Jul y19 , 1949 . Sincerel yYours , Ing.Xui ^

P . RodrtgiE^ z A^iza^

^ Presiden t o f Civi l Aviatio n "^Dari d Jj | Ambassado rRepresentativ e t o the^s!CAp:|ind w

•'./C A LPRA/BF C r h

Call e Jos e Joaqui n Pere z No . 104 , Gazcue , Sant o Domingo , Republic a Dominican a Tel. : 809-689-416 7 • Fax : 809-689-411 3
# C_2012006EN.01001501.xml

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Dorma v OHIM — Puertas Doorsa (doorsa FÁBRICA DE PUERTAS AUTOMÁTICAS)

(Case T-500/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ‘doorsa FÁBRICA DE PUERTAS AUTOMÁTICAS’ - Earlier national and international word and figurative marks ‘DORMA’ - Lodging of additional documents on the reputation of the earlier marks in the procedure before the Board of Appeal - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 6/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dorma GmbH & Co. KG (Ennepetal, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Puertas Doorsa, SL (Petrel, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 August 2010 (Case R 542/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Dorma GmbH & Co. KG and Puertas Doorsa, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dorma GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dorma GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

1

---
§ 158.510 Strategic recruitment. ( a ) On an ongoing basis, the Department develops and implements strategies for publicly communicating about the DHS cybersecurity mission and the DHS-CS and for proactively recruiting individuals likely to possess CTMS qualifications.
( b ) The Department develops and implements strategies described in paragraph (a) of this section based on: ( 1 ) CTMS qualifications and DHS-CS cybersecurity work; and
( 2 ) Strategic talent priorities.
( c ) In developing and implementing strategies described in paragraph (a) of this section, the Department may collaborate with: ( 1 ) Other Federal agencies including the Department of Defense, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Department of Veterans Affairs;
( 2 ) Institutions of higher education, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 1001, including historically Black colleges or universities, as described in 20 U.S.C. 1061(2), and other minority-serving institutions, as described in 20 U.S.C. 1067q(a);
( 3 ) National organizations, including veterans service organizations recognized by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and professional associations chartered by Congress under 36 U.S.C. Part B; and
( 4 ) Other similar organizations and groups.
( d ) The Department considers the availability of preference eligibles and veterans for appointment under this part, and develops and implements specific strategies to proactively recruit such individuals.
# C_2010221EN.01006101.xml

| 14.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/61

---

Action brought on 18 June 2010 — Hecq v Commission

(Case F-47/10)

()

2010/C 221/97

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: André Hecq (Chaumont-Gistoux, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the Commission decisions refusing to accept that the applicant suffers from partial permanent invalidity within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and making him liable for part of the fees and expenses incurred during the proceedings of the medical committee

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority on 5 March 2010 (and communicated by electronic mail of 8 March 2010), rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant, dated 9 December 2009, against two administrative decisions dated 7 September 2009 which, respectively, contain a definitive refusal to accept that the applicant suffers from any form of invalidity, under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, and which furthermore require the applicant to pay half of the fees and expenses of the doctor who presided over the medical committee, amounting to EUR 500 (subsequently reduced to EUR 300), and to also pay all (then, subsequently, a quota of 60 %) of the fees and expenses of the doctor who represented him in connection with the proceedings of that medical committee; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority on 5 March 2010 (and communicated by electronic mail of 8 March 2010), rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant, dated 9 December 2009, against two administrative decisions dated 7 September 2009 which, respectively, contain a definitive refusal to accept that the applicant suffers from any form of invalidity, under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, and which furthermore require the applicant to pay half of the fees and expenses of the doctor who presided over the medical committee, amounting to EUR 500 (subsequently reduced to EUR 300), and to also pay all (then, subsequently, a quota of 60 %) of the fees and expenses of the doctor who represented him in connection with the proceedings of that medical committee;

| — | also annul those decisions dated 7 September 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

also annul those decisions dated 7 September 2009;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
#### ELAINE ROGERS, Plaintiff v. FORREST GENE ROGERS, Defendant

Civil Case No. 567-78

Superior Court of Guam

June 5, 1979

WEEKS, *Judge*

*614DECISION

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff has a default judgment entered in New Mexico in divorce proceedings. Plaintiff further alleges that there are sums of money owed in child support arising from that judgment.

Defendant answered the complaint with denials and affirmatively pleads failure of personal service, lack of jurisdiction and fraud.

By affidavit filed with the Summary Judgment motion plaintiff’s counsel categorizes the New Mexico judgment as valid and opines that the defendant’s service is valid.

Defendant by affidavit in opposition indicates regular payment under the judgment in this case and avers improper notice of the Order to Show Cause which modified the original order.

Defendant’s attorney disputed the validity of the service of the Order to Show Cause, his appraisal of the New Mexico Law being that this is invalid.

The fraud allegation is supported by unnotorized copy of the Order to Show Cause submitted to this Court (although a copy of the papers served was directed to be sent to this Court by plaintiff island counsel, this Court did not receive them).

This paper does allege defendant’s minimum salary of $25,000.00. Defendant has in his affidavit sworn to a $15,000.00 figure.

The alleged misrepresentation of the current income of defendant would be a factor to consider in modification of the last ordered support payment and can properly be considered by this Court.

Foreign created-alimony and support obligations are enforceable in this state. In an action to enforce a modifiable support obligation, *615either party may tender and litigate any plea for modification that could be presented to the Courts of the state where the alimony or support decree was originally rendered. *Worthley v. Worthley,*283 P.2d 19 (cited by defendant in his memorandum and cited in oral argument by plaintiff), contains this language at p. 25.

In view of this mandate to consider any plea for modification, this Court finds that Summary Judgment is not appropriate at this time and the motion is hereby denied.
§ 391.2 Basetime rate. ( a ) For each calendar year, FSIS will calculate the basetime rate for inspection services, per hour per program employee, provided pursuant to §§ 350.7, 351.8, 351.9, 352.5, 354.101, 355.12, and 362.5 of this chapter, using the following formula: The quotient of dividing the Office of Field Operations plus Office of International Affairs inspection program personnel's previous fiscal year's regular direct pay by the previous fiscal year's regular hours, plus the quotient multiplied by the calendar year's percentage of cost of living increase, plus the benefits rate, plus the travel and operating rate, plus the overhead rate, plus the allowance for bad debt rate.
( b ) FSIS will calculate the benefits, travel and operating, overhead, and allowance for bad debt rate components of the basetime rate, using the following formulas: ( 1 ) *Benefits rate.* The quotient of dividing the previous fiscal year's direct benefits costs by the previous fiscal year's total hours (regular, overtime, and holiday), plus the quotient multiplied by the calendar year's percentage cost of living increase. Some examples of direct benefits are health insurance, retirement, life insurance, and Thrift Savings Plan basic and matching contributions.
( 2 ) *Travel and operating rate.* The quotient of dividing the previous fiscal year's total direct travel and operating costs by the previous fiscal year's total hours (regular, overtime, and holiday), plus the quotient multiplied by the calendar year's percentage of inflation.
( 3 ) *Overhead rate.* The quotient of dividing the previous fiscal year's indirect costs plus the previous fiscal year's information technology (IT) costs in the Public Health Data Communication Infrastructure System Fund plus the previous fiscal year's Office of Management Program cost in the Reimbursable and Voluntary Funds plus the provision for the operating balance less any Greenbook costs (i.e., costs of USDA support services prorated to the service component for which the fees are charged) that are not related to food inspection, by the previous fiscal year's total hours (regular, overtime, and holiday) worked across all funds, plus the quotient multiplied by the calendar year's percentage of inflation.
( 4 ) *Allowance for bad debt rate.* Previous fiscal year's allowance for bad debt (for example, debt owed that is not paid in full by plants and establishments that declare bankruptcy) divided by the previous fiscal year's total hours (regular, overtime, and holiday) worked.
( c ) The calendar year's cost of living increases and percentage of inflation factors used in the formulas in this section are based on the Office of Management and Budget's Presidential Economic Assumptions.
[76 FR 20227, Apr. 12, 2011]
1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS §

INC., §

§ No. 174, 2014

Plaintiff-Below, §

Appellant, § Court Below: Court of

§ Chancery of the State of

v. § Delaware

§

SPANISH BROADCASTING § Consol. C.A. No. 8321-VCG

SYSTEM, INC., §

§

Defendant-Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: December 10, 2014

Decided: December 11, 2014 

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, RIDGELY, and VAUGHN, 

Justices; SILVERMAN, Judge,constituting the Court en Banc.

O R D E R

In this appeal, the plaintiff and appellant, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.,

argues that the Court of Chancery erred in finding that the doctrine of acquiescence 

barred its claims. The defendant and appellee, Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc.,

argues that the Court of Chancery was correct in dismissing Lehman’s claims, and 

also urges alternative grounds of affirmance, including that the doctrine of laches 

bars the claims, and that the underlying Certificate of Designation cannot 

 



Sitting by designation under Del. Const. art. IV, § 12.
2

reasonably be read in a manner that expands the scope of preferential rights given 

to preferred stockholders like Lehman.

We have carefully considered the arguments of the parties and find no error 

in the Court of Chancery’s determination that acquiescence barred Lehman’s 

claims, given the undisputed facts of record.1 We therefore affirm that 

determination substantially for the reasons stated in the Court of Chancery’s 

decision of February 25, 2014. In so affirming, however, we do not imply any 

agreement or disagreement with the Court of Chancery’s determination that the 

doctrine of laches itself did not bar Lehman from proceeding. Because the Court 

of Chancery did not err in applying the theory it did, we need not and do not reach

that issue or Spanish Broadcasting System’s other asserted bases for affirmance, 

including its argument that the plaintiffs’ contract claim is substantively without 

merit. 

For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Chancery is AFFIRMED. IT 

IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice 

 

1

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and T. Rowe Price High Yield Fund, Inc. v. Spanish 

Broadcasting System, Inc., Consol. C.A. No. 8321 (Del. Ch. Feb. 25, 2014).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TERRENCE FITZPATRICK,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 153 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of August, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
§ 37.19 Machine readable technology on the driver's license or identification card. For the machine readable portion of the REAL ID driver's license or identification card, States must use ISO/IEC 15438:2006(E) (incorporated by reference; see § 37.4). The PDF417 bar code standard must have the following defined minimum data elements: ( a ) Expiration date.
( b ) Full legal name, unless the State permits an applicant to establish a name other than the name that appears on a source document, pursuant to § 37.11(c)(2).
( c ) Date of transaction.
( d ) Date of birth.
( e ) Gender.
( f ) Address as listed on the card pursuant to § 37.17(f).
( g ) Unique driver's license or identification card number.
( h ) Card design revision date, indicating the most recent change or modification to the visible format of the driver's license or identification card.
( i ) Inventory control number of the physical document.
( j ) State or territory of issuance.
[73 FR 5331, Jan. 29, 2008, as amended at 88 FR 44192, July 12, 2023]
§ 3.9 Feeding. ( a ) Dogs and cats must be fed at least once each day, except as otherwise might be required to provide adequate veterinary care. The food must be uncontaminated, wholesome, palatable, and of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain the normal condition and weight of the animal. The diet must be appropriate for the individual animal's age and condition.
( b ) Food receptacles must be used for dogs and cats, must be readily accessible to all dogs and cats, and must be located so as to minimize contamination by excreta and pests, and be protected from rain and snow. Feeding pans must either be made of a durable material that can be easily cleaned and sanitized or be disposable. If the food receptacles are not disposable, they must be kept clean and must be sanitized in accordance with § 3.11(b) of this subpart. Sanitization is achieved by using one of the methods described in § 3.11(b)(3) of this subpart. If the food receptacles are disposable, they must be discarded after one use. Self-feeders may be used for the feeding of dry food. If self-feeders are used, they must be kept clean and must be sanitized in accordance with § 3.11(b) of this subpart. Measures must be taken to ensure that there is no molding, deterioration, and caking of feed.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1412 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1412

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to limit the reporting 
 requirements regarding higher education tuition and related expenses, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 22, 1999

    Ms. Collins (for herself, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Smith of Oregon) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to limit the reporting 
 requirements regarding higher education tuition and related expenses, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Higher Education Reporting Relief 
Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

    Subsection (g) of section 6050S of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (relating to returns relating to higher education tuition and 
related expenses) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
``Prior to calendar year 2002, the Secretary shall not require any 
information to be reported under this section in addition to the 
information required under subsections (b) and (d) and Internal Revenue 
Service Notice 97-73.''.

SEC. 3. MODERNIZATION OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE COMPUTERS.

    Not later than January 1, 2003, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
implement any update or modernization of the computer system of the 
Internal Revenue Service required to allow such system to match the TIN 
(as defined in section 7701(a)(41) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986) of an individual with any return filed by a person claiming the 
individual as a dependent.
                                 <all>
```
M A N D A T E

TO THE 252ND DISTRICT COURT of JEFFERSON COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 17th day of April,

2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

RANDY JAMES LEWIS JR., Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-13-00056-CR (Tr.Ct.No. 11-11140)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal,

concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court orders

the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 30th day of December, 2014.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK

FILE COPY