alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 71.28 Motions. ( a ) Any application to the ALJ for an order or ruling shall be by motion. Motions shall state the relief sought, the authority relied upon, and the facts alleged, and shall be filed with the ALJ and served on all other parties.
( b ) Except for motions made during a prehearing conference or at the hearing, all motions shall be in writing. The ALJ may require that oral motions be reduced to writing.
( c ) Within 15 days after a written motion is served, or such other time as may be fixed by the ALJ, any party may file a response to such motion.
( d ) The ALJ may not grant a written motion before the time for filing responses thereto has expired, except upon consent of the parties or following a hearing on the motion, but may overrule or deny such motion without awaiting a response.
( e ) The ALJ shall make a reasonable effort to dispose of all outstanding motions prior to the beginning of the hearing.
IIA 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 80 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale 

to the United Arab Emirates of certain defense articles and services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2020 

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. PAUL, and Mr. MURPHY) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the United Arab Emirates of certain 

defense articles and services. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the following proposed foreign military sale to the 

4 United Arab Emirates is prohibited: 

5 (1) The sale of the following defense articles, 

6 including defense services and technical data, de7 scribed in Transmittal No. 21–0A, submitted to 

8 Congress pursuant to section 36(b) of the Arms Ex9 port Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(b)) and published 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 80 IS 

1 in the Congressional Record on November 10, 2020: 

2 the addition of five hundred (500) Sidewinder AIM– 

3 9X Block II+ (Plus) Tactical Missiles; forty (40) 

4 Sidewinder AIM–9X Block II Captive Air Training 

5 Missiles (CATMs); three (3) Sidewinder AIM–9X 

6 Block II Special Air Training Missiles (NATMS); 

7 fifty (50) Sidewinder AIM–9X Block II+ (Plus) 

8 Tactical Guidance Units; twenty-five (25) Side9 winder AIM–9X Block II CATM Guidance Units; 

10 containers; spares; support equipment and missile 

11 support; United States Government and contractor 

12 technical assistance and other related logistics sup13 port; and other associated support equipment and 

14 services with a value of $490,000,000, to a previous 

15 sale notified to Congress on March 7, 2018, by Con16 gressional certification transmittal number 17–20 of 

17 the possible sale under section 36(b)(1) of the Arms 

18 Export Control Act of three hundred (300) AIM– 

19 9X–2 Sidewinder Block II All-Up-Round Missiles; 

20 forty (40) AIM–9X–2 Sidewinder Captive Air Train21 ing Missiles (CATMs); thirty (30) AIM–9X–2 Block 

22 II Tactical Guidance Units; fifteen (15) AIM–9X–2 

23 CATM Units; containers; spares; support equipment 

24 and missile support; United States Government and 

25 contractor technical assistance and other related loVerDate Sep 11 2014 18:16 Nov 19, 2020 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SJ80.IS SJ80

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•SJ 80 IS 

1 gistics support; and other associated support equip2 ment and services. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.24


                                      AMENDMENT
                  HILTON HOTELS RETIREMENT BENEFIT REPLACEMENT PLAN
                                           

         WHEREAS, Hilton Hotels Corporation (the "Company") maintains the
Hilton Hotels Retirement Benefit Replacement Plan ("Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, the Company has the right to amend the Plan; and

         WHEREAS, the Company has resolved that benefit accruals under the Plan
should be frozen effective December 31, 1996 for all Participants;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 

         The following is added to the end of Section 2.2:

         "Effective January 1, 1997, no further benefits shall be accrued by
    any Participant in this Plan.  Accordingly, each Participant in this Plan
    shall be entitled to the benefit he or she earned through and including
    December 31, 1996, but shall not be credited with any additional benefit
    following December 31, 1996.  The benefit payable under this plan shall,
    however, be calculated by reference to the actual benefit payable from the
    retirement plan.  Thus, by way of illustration and not limitation, if cost
    of living 



<PAGE>

    increases under Internal Revenue Code Section 415 following December 31, 
    1996 increase the benefit payable to a Participant under the retirement 
    plan, the benefit payable to the Participant under this Plan shall be 
    correspondingly decreased."

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is hereby adopted this ____ day of
November, 1996.


                                  HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION


                                  By ______________________

                                  Its _____________________



                                       2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1322

In Re: JANISE ROSE SWEATMON,

Debtor.

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

JANISE ROSE SWEATMON,

Debtor - Appellant,

versus

OCWEN FEDERAL BANK, FSB,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

NANCY L. SPENCER-GRIGSBY,

 Trustee.

No. 05-1323

In Re: JANISE ROSE SWEATMON,

Debtor.

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

JANISE ROSE SWEATMON,

Debtor - Appellant,

versus
- 2 -

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

NANCY L. SPENCER-GRIGSBY,

Trustee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA05-264-PJM; CA-05-265-PJM; BK-04-24686)

Submitted: August 31, 2005 Decided: September 20, 2005

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Janise Rose Sweatmon, Appellant Pro Se. Bradford Scott Bernstein,

MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, Rockville, Maryland; Lisa-Gail Kingsley

Jenkins, HUESMAN, JONES & MILES, LLC, Hunt Valley, Maryland, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Janise Rose Sweatmon appeals the district court’s order

affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders: (1) denying her request

for a continuance; (2) lifting the automatic stay and allowing a

foreclosure to proceed; and (3) dismissing her bankruptcy petition

with prejudice. Our review of the record and the opinions below

discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See In re Sweatmon, Nos. CA05-264-PJM; CA-05-265-PJM; BK-04-24686 (D. Md. filed Mar. 17,

2005 & entered Mar. 18, 2005). We grant Sweatmon’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis, deny her motion for appointment of

counsel, and dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of Fred C. Begelspiker et al., against Metropolitan Savings Bank. Sam Feldman (I. Mallin & Co.)

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.
§ 97.19 Immediate notification of local law enforcement in the event of an escape. Private prisoner transport companies must be sufficiently equipped to provide immediate notification to law enforcement in the event of a prisoner escape. Law enforcement officials must receive notification no later than 15 minutes after an escape is detected unless the company can demonstrate that extenuating circumstances necessitated a longer delay. In the event of the escape of a violent prisoner, a private prisoner transport company must: ( a ) Ensure the safety and security of the remaining prisoners;
( b ) Provide notification within 15 minutes to the appropriate State and local law enforcement officials;
( c ) Provide notification as soon as practicable to the governmental entity or the privately run incarceration facility that contracted with the transport company; and
( d ) Provide complete descriptions of the escapee and the circumstances surrounding the escape to State and local law enforcement officials if needed.
EXHIBIT 10-W



                    AMENDMENT TO STOCKHOLDER AGREEMENT


          This Amendment to Stockholder Agreement is dated as of November
9, 1995. The following terms are incorporated by reference into the
Stockholder Agreement dated as of August 31, 1994 by and between Guardsman
Products, Inc., John H. Sadler, and James L. Sadler.  Notwithstanding any
contrary terms, the Stockholder Agreement is hereby amended and the parties
agree as follows:

     1.   Section 11 of the Stockholder Agreement entitled "Voting of
Shares" is deleted in its entirety and the Stockholders, as defined in the
Stockholder Agreement, shall have no continuing obligations under Section
11 of the Stockholder Agreement.

     2.   Except as specifically set forth in this Amendment to Stockholder
Agreement, the Stockholder Agreement shall remain in full force and effect
without further amendment.


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to
Stockholder Agreement on the date first set forth above.


                                        GUARDSMAN PRODUCTS, INC.


                                        By: /S/ PAUL K. GASTON

                                            Its: CHAIRMAN


                                        JAMES L. SADLER


                                        /S/ JAMES L. SADLER


                                        JOHN H. SADLER


                                        /S/ JOHN H. SADLER





                                   -43-
# C_2012118EN.01002402.xml

| 21.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2012 — Arrieta D. Gross v OHIM — International Biocentric Foundation and Others (BIODANZA)

(Case T-298/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark BIODANZA - Earlier national word mark BIODANZA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Death of the trade mark applicant before adoption of the decision of the Board of Appeal - Admissibility of the response - Absence of genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Proceedings before the Board of Appeal - Rights of defence - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

2012/C 118/41

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Christina Arrieta D. Gross (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J.-P. Ewert, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rolando Mario Toro Araneda (Santiago de Chile, Chile)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 April 2010 (Case R 1149/2009-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Christina Arrieta D. Gross and Rolando Mario Toro Araneda.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Grants leave to the International Biocentric Foundation Ltd, Gabriela Cedilia Toro Acuña and Hilda Pilar Toro Acuña, Rolando Patricio Toro Acuña, Maria Verónica Toro Acuña, Ricardo Marcela Toro Durán and German Toro Gonzalez, Claudia Danae Toro Sanchez, Rodrigo Paulo Toro Sanchez, Mariela Paula Toro Sanchez, Viviana Luz Toro Matuk, Morgana Fonteles Toro, Anna Laura Toro Sant’ana, Joana Castoldi Toro Araneda and Claudete Sant’ana to intervene before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Grants leave to the International Biocentric Foundation Ltd, Gabriela Cedilia Toro Acuña and Hilda Pilar Toro Acuña, Rolando Patricio Toro Acuña, Maria Verónica Toro Acuña, Ricardo Marcela Toro Durán and German Toro Gonzalez, Claudia Danae Toro Sanchez, Rodrigo Paulo Toro Sanchez, Mariela Paula Toro Sanchez, Viviana Luz Toro Matuk, Morgana Fonteles Toro, Anna Laura Toro Sant’ana, Joana Castoldi Toro Araneda and Claudete Sant’ana to intervene before the General Court;

| 2. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action;

| 3. | Orders Christina Arrieta D. Gross to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Christina Arrieta D. Gross to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.

1

---
#### William H. Burr, Jr., Appellant, v. Edna B. Baillet et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Present ■— Hagarty, Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ..
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division 

                    Notice is hereby given that, on February 24, 2011, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its                           ( print page 16821)                        membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Strategic Test AB, Woburn, MA; Integrated Device Technology, Inc. (IDT), San Jose, CA; DGE Inc., Rochester Hills, MI; Tundra Semiconductor Corp., Fremont, CA; Tyco Electronics, Middletown, PA; and Crystek Corporation, Fort Myers, FL, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.                 

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership. 

                    On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on March 8, 2001 (66 FR 13971).                 

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 22, 2010. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act October 25, 2010 (75 FR 65511).                 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division. 

[FR Doc. 2011-6915 Filed 3-24-11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### § 551.1 Policy.

The Bureau of Prisons permits an inmate to select the hair style of personal choice, and expects personal cleanliness and dress in keeping with standards of good grooming and the security, good order, and discipline of the institution.
FROM: THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CASCADE,

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. HAROLD JAMES SANDERS, Defendant.

NO. CDC-85-004 DECISION

DATED this 6th day of December, 1990.

On February 14, 1990, the Defendant was sentenced to five (5) years for a revoked Theft charge with 30 days credit for time served.

On December 6, 1990, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and was represented by Rod Ermatinger, of the Montana Defender Project. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it if such is possible. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the Judgment be remanded back to the Sentencing Judge, Joel Roth, for a determination pursuant to Sec. 46- 18-201(3), MCA, as to whether the Defendant should or should not receive credit for the 22 months while he was on probation before his revocation.

This matter will then be returned to the Sentence Review Division after the District Judge has made his findings for further proceedings.

The reason for the decision is the Sentencing Judge should make findings as to why he does receive credit or does not receive credit for the 22 months while Petitioner was on probation prior to his revocation.
1 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

Eastern District of Virginia 

Alexandria Division 

In re: 

Champagne Services, LLC. 

 Debtor. 

 

 

Case No. 16-11683-RGM 

Chapter 11 

Hearing 

November 29, 2016, at 11:00 am 

Courtroom I, 2nd Floor 

 

Amended Notice of Motion and Hearing

 The Office of the U.S. Trustee has filed papers with the court to dismiss or convert this 

case to a case under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. 

Your rights may be affected. You should read these papers carefully and discuss 

them with your attorney, if you have one in this bankruptcy case. (If you do not have an 

attorney, you may wish to consult one.) 

If you do not wish the court to grant the relief sought in the motion, or if you want the 

court to consider your views on the motion, then on or before the scheduled hearing, Tuesday, 

November 29, 2016, at 11:00 am, you or your attorney must: 

■ File with the court, at the address shown below, a written response with 

supporting memorandum as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(H). 

Unless a written response and supporting memorandum are filed and served 

by the date specified, the Court may deem any opposition waived, treat the 

motion as conceded, and issue an order granting the requested relief without 

further notice or hearing. If you mail your response to the court for filing, you 

must mail it early enough so the court will receive it on or before the date stated 

above. You must also mail a copy to the persons listed below. 

■ Attend the hearing scheduled to be held on November 29, 2016, at 11:00 

o’clock a.m. in Courtroom No. 1, Second Floor, United States Bankruptcy Court, 

200 South Washington Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. If no timely response 

has been filed opposing the relief requested, the court may grant the relief 

without holding a hearing. 

■ A copy of any written response must be mailed to the following persons:

Case 16-11683-RGM Doc 89 Filed 11/15/16 Entered 11/15/16 15:20:37 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
2 

■ United States Trustee 

 115 South Union St, Suite 210 

 Alexandria, Va 22314 

 If you or your attorney do not take these steps, the court may decide that you do not 

oppose the relief sought in the motion or objection and may enter an order granting that relief. 

November 14, 2016 Judy A. Robbins 

 United States Trustee 

 /s/Jack I. Frankel 

 Jack I. Frankel, Attorney 

 Office of United States Trustee 

 115 South Union Street, Suite 210 

 Alexandria, VA 22314 

 (703) 557-7176 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on the 14th day of November, 2016, I mailed, first class, postage 

prepaid, a true copy of the motion and amended notice of motion to the Debtor at: 

Champagne Services, LLC  

1329 Shepard Drive, Suite 5  

Sterling, VA 20164

 

 /s/ Jack Frankel 

Case 16-11683-RGM Doc 89 Filed 11/15/16 Entered 11/15/16 15:20:37 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
### §410r–1. Acceptance of additional lands

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to accept for Everglades National Park purposes, title to approximately 1,160 acres of land and submerged land lying within sections 25, 26, and 36 of township 53 south, range 29 east, and section 30, township 53 south, range 30 east, Tallahassee meridian, and being a portion of the land and submerged land donated and conveyed by three Collier deeds in 1951 and 1952 to the trustees of the internal improvement fund of the State of Florida for subsequent inclusion in the Everglades National Park. Such three Collier deeds are dated December 12, 1951, December 26, 1951, and March 21, 1952, and are recorded in deed book 22, page 240, deed book 22, page 244, and deed book 39, page 25, respectively, in Collier County, Florida. The aforesaid land and submerged land shall be subject to the reservations set forth in the aforementioned Collier deeds for public utility easements and rights-of-way of the public with respect to Indian Key Channel, and also to a public right-of-way for the State highway or causeway from Everglades City to Chokoloskee Island.

(Pub. L. 86–681, §1, Sept. 2, 1960, 74 Stat. 577.)
#### § 636.504 If the solicitation indicated my intent was to award contract without discussions, but circumstances change, may I still hold discussions?

Yes, you may still elect to hold discussions when circumstances dictate, as long as the rationale for doing so is documented in the contract file. Such circumstances might include situations where all proposals received have deficiencies, when fair and reasonable prices are not offered, or when the cost or price offered is not affordable.
!"

	 
!



"	#	$#

	

#$%
&'
	
(	
)*+*,(
	(-.&/



0	
	)1/'2%3'	(4	/	
2
	4	/

	
2	
(5&
(1!
		
2	
'&6//	)


%
%+	(-.&/

0	
	)1/'2%3'11

$$%0
2
	-&1/'23'/

/'22$&2(1/12	&

+*,
7((	/&
'	
'8*8*,88*,	
'	/	'1
/5/2



8*,8*,9(2	;
2<*=112/11
4262//(		


%
%	(-.&/

0	
	)1/'2%3'

	-

&1/'23'/

/'22$&2(1/12	&+*,
7((	/&
'	
'

8*8*,88*,	
'	/	'1
/5/2

8*,8*,9(2	;
2

<11>(2	2?/'

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 	/!")

 /2$ >	(&)(25

0	2 ) $

@88
'0A
	'@@@@@@@@@@@ @88% 
)2@@@@@@@@@@@


'0A
	'% 
)2+%B

		( 
(1
	
	

,,
	C/5
$	+$,, DA		/
?/11
2+$*,

132	/+;** $
	2+;**

EF,GD***

;$ H**

I
&1
(1=,**EG	//&/



	5
/5	2	42
	2)28
		?2(
11&	)	/(	(


I
&1
(1=,**EG

88
'0A
	'

May 20 2016 /s/ Brian F. Kenney

eod 5/20/2016

Case 15-14556-BFK Doc 29 Filed 05/20/16 Entered 05/20/16 16:52:54 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 3
	2	$(//5.&/

%3'/
/0	+5*

H !"+
/&	2
(	


'0A
	'+		(

Case 15-14556-BFK Doc 29 Filed 05/20/16 Entered 05/20/16 16:52:54 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 3
	2	$(//5.&/

%3'/
/0	+5

H !"+
/&	2
(	


	



/&	2
(	

	
	

,*#	
(		/?

$
	2+;**

% 
)2


	)
	
	

DA		/
?/11
2

$*,

$
	2+;**


'0A
	'

		(

,,C/5
$	+$,,

132	/+;**

Case 15-14556-BFK Doc 29 Filed 05/20/16 Entered 05/20/16 16:52:54 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 3