alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 645
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 645 appear at 65 FR 70311, Nov. 22, 2000.

§ 645.205 Policy. ( a ) Pursuant to the provisions of 23 CFR 1.23, it is in the public interest for utility facilities to be accommodated on the right-of-way of a Federal-aid or direct Federal highway project when such use and occupancy of the highway right-of-way do not adversely affect highway or traffic safety, or otherwise impair the highway or its aesthetic quality, and do not conflict with the provisions of Federal, State or local laws or regulations.
( b ) Since by tradition and practice highway and utility facilities frequently coexist within common right-of-way or along the same transportation corridors, it is essential in such situations that these public service facilities be compatibly designed and operated. In the design of new highway facilities consideration should be given to utility service needs of the area traversed if such service is to be provided from utility facilities on or near the highway. Similarly the potential impact on the highway and its users should be considered in the design and location of utility facilities on or along highway right-of-way. Efficient, effective and safe joint highway and utility development of transportation corridors is important along high speed and high volume roads, such as major arterials and freeways, particularly those approaching metropolitan areas where space is increasingly limited. Joint highway and utility planning and development efforts are encouraged on Federal-aid highway projects.
( c ) The manner is which utilities cross or otherwise occupy the right-of-way of a direct Federal or Federal-aid highway project can materially affect the highway, its safe operation, aesthetic quality, and maintenance. Therefore, it is necessary that such use and occupancy, where authorized, be regulated by transportation departments in a manner which preserves the operational safety and the functional and aesthetic quality of the highway facility. This subpart shall not be construed to alter the basic legal authority of utilities to install their facilities on public highways pursuant to law or franchise and reasonable regulation by transportation departments with respect to location and manner of installation.
( d ) When utilities cross or otherwise occupy the right-of-way of a direct Federal or Federal-aid highway project on Federal lands, and when the right-of-way grant is for highway purposes only, the utility must also obtain and comply with the terms of a right-of-way or other occupancy permit for the Federal agency having jurisdiction over the underlying land.
[50 FR 20354, May 15, 1985, as amended at 53 FR 2833, Feb. 2, 1988]
# Official Journal C 105/2015

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 105 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5827 March 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 105

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5827 March 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2015/C 105/01 | Commission communication concerning Article 4(3) of Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests, which codifies Directive 98/27/EC, concerning the entities qualified to bring an action under Article 2 of this Directive (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2015/C 105/01

Commission communication concerning Article 4(3) of Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests, which codifies Directive 98/27/EC, concerning the entities qualified to bring an action under Article 2 of this Directive (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the managed entry in the EU of persons in need of international protection and the enhancement of the protection capacity of the regions of origin — “Improving access to durable solutions”’

(COM(2004) 410 final)

(2005/C 157/16)

On 25 August 2004, the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned communication.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 25 November 2004. The rapporteur was Ms Le Nouail-Marlière.

At its 413th plenary session, held on 15 and 16 December 2004 (meeting of 15 December), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 139 votes to one, with nine abstentions:

1.   Gist of the Commission document

2.   General comments

3.   Specific comments

4.   Conclusions

Brussels, 15 December 2004.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  See Directive No. 2004/83/EC, adopted by the Council on 29.4.2004.

(2)  See European Parliament report A5-0304/2001 (rapporteur: Mr Evans) on the Communication from the Commission Towards a common asylum procedure and a uniform status, valid throughout the Union, for persons granted asylum (COM(2000) 755 final) and report A5-0291/2001 (rapporteur: Mr Watson) on the Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status. Report of the European Parliament A5-0144/2004 (Rapporteur: Luis Marinho) on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Towards more accessible, equitable and managed asylum systems (COM(2003) 315 final).

(3)  See EESC Opinion on the Communication from the Commission ‘Towards a common asylum procedure and a uniform status, valid throughout the Union, for persons granted asylum’ (COM(2000) 755 final) in OJ C 260, 17.9.2001 (rapporteurs: Mr Mengozzi and Mr Pariza Castaños), and EESC Opinion on the Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status in OJ C 193, 10.7.2001 (rapporteur: Mr Melicías).

(4)  In particular, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and Caritas Europe.

(5)  Directive 2001/55/EC.

(6)  See Communication from the Commission COM(2004) 503 final and the corresponding Committee Opinion (SOC/185).

----
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Justin Carl Folsom v. Corin Cardenas Folsom

Appellate case number: 01-22-00426-CV

Trial court case number: CCL9686

Trial court: County Court at Law of Washington County

Appellant Justin Carl Folsom appeals from a judgment signed on May 3, 2022. Absent 

any time-extending motions, a notice of appeal must be filed thirty days after the judgment is 

signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3, the “appellate 

court may extend the time to file the notice of appeal if, within 15 days after the deadline for 

filing the notice of appeal, the party: (1) filed in the trial court the notice of appeal; and (2) filed 

in the appellate court a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b).” TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Rule 

10.5(b)(2) provides that a motion to extend time to file a notice of appeal must (1) state the 

deadline for filing the item in question; (2) state the facts relied on to reasonably explain the need 

for an extension; (3) identify the trial court; (4) state the date of the trial court’s judgment or 

appealable order; and (5) state the case number and style of the case in the trial court. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 26.1, 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)-(2). 

Appellant filed his notice of appeal on June 3, 2022, one day after it was due, but within 

the fifteen-day period allowed under Rule 26.3 for the filing of a motion for extension of time to 

file a notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3; see also Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 

617 (Tex. 1997) (holding motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when appellant, 

acting in good faith, files notice of appeal within fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3). On June 16, 2022, Appellant’s counsel filed a motion 

for extension of time to file the notice of appeal, stating that the notice was late due to his client’s 

delay in engaging him. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3. 

The motion complies with the requirements of Rule 10.5(b) in that it identifies the 

deadline for filing the notice of appeal, provides the facts relied on to reasonably explain the 

need for the extension, and identifies the trial court, the date of the judgment, and the case 

number and style in the trial court. Given that the notice of appeal was filed within the fifteenday grace period, and because counsel’s explanation for the delay indicates he was acting in 

good faith in seeking the extension, we grant the motion for extension of time in which to file 

the notice of appeal.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Veronica Rivas-Molloy

Acting individually 

Date: July 7, 2022
Addendum to Promissory Note



         This  addendum  is  executed  this  30th  day  of  September,  1999, by
Auto Corp Equities,  Inc., a Nevada  corporation,  and represents an addition to
that certain  Promissory  Note dated April 16, 1999,  in the original  principal
amount of $1,345,185.09,  a copy of which is attached hereto for  identification
purposes (the "Note").

         As  a  result of  additional  obligations  to  AutoPrime, Inc.,  payee,
AutoCorp Equities, Inc. does hereby increase the principal amount of the Note by
the sum of  $1,049,131.65,  which sum represents the current  account payable to
AutoPrime,  Inc.  as a result  of  contract  repurchase  obligations  and  other
liabilities out of the Lenders portfolio of contracts.

         Other than  the principal  modification  stated herein, all other terms
of the Note shall remain in full force and effect.

          Executed this 30th day of September, 1999.



                                           AutoCorp Equities, Inc.

                                           By:  /s/  Charles Norman, President
                                                ------------------------------
                                                     Charles Norman
### §460gg–9. Hunting and fishing

The Secretary shall permit hunting and fishing on lands and waters under his jurisdiction within the boundaries of the recreation area in accordance with applicable laws of the United States and the States wherein the lands and waters are located except that the Secretary may designate zones where, and establish periods when, no hunting or fishing shall be permitted for reasons for public safety, administration, or public use and enjoyment. Except in emergencies, any regulations of the Secretary pursuant to this section shall be put into effect only after consultation with the appropriate State fish and game department.

(Pub. L. 94–199, §12, Dec. 31, 1975, 89 Stat. 1122.)
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4338 — Cinven-Warburg Pincus/Casema-Multikabel)

(2006/C 243/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 6 September 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
### §467. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, act Aug. 21, 1935, ch. 593, §7, 49 Stat. 668, related to conflict of laws.
### §460hh–2. Establishment of hunting and fishing zones; exceptions; consultation with State agencies

The Secretary shall permit hunting and fishing on lands and waters within the recreation area in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws: Provided, That he may designate zones where, and establish periods when, no hunting or fishing will be permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, fish or wildlife management, or public use and enjoyment. Except in emergencies, any regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this section shall be put into effect only after consultation with the appropriate State agency responsible for hunting and fishing activities.

(Pub. L. 94–235, §3, Mar. 17, 1976, 90 Stat. 236.)
(55 South. 337.)

No. 18,838.

#### NEWTON et al. v. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO.

(May 8, 1911.)

*(Syllabus by the Court.)*

Courts (§ 224*) — Supreme Court — Certified Questions — Statements oe Fact.

Under article 101 of the Constitution of 1898, the Supreme Court cannot be called upon to instruct Courts of Appeal on questions of law predicated on incomplete statements of fact. Where instructions are requested, the Supreme Court cannot be called upon to find a part of the facts from an examination of the entire record.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 608-618; Dec. Dig. § 224.*]

Case Certified, from Court of Appeal, Second Circuit.

Action by Fred O. Newton and others against the Mutual Life Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals to the Court of Appeal, with submitted questions of law for consideration. Record returned to the Court of Appeal.

Hudson, Potts & Bernstein and Denegre & Blair, for appellant. A. A. Gunby and F. C. Newton, for appellees.

LAND, J.

Our learned Brothers of the Court of Appeal, after stating the facts and submitting questions of law for our consideration, conclude as follows:

> “For the convenience of your honorable court, and as a supplement to the above statement of facts, we transmit herewith the entire record in the case, together with briefs of counsel.”

The arguments of counsel are based on the statement of facts, as supplemented by the record, including all the evidence adduced on the trial in the district court.

Article 101 of the Constitution of 1898, reads as follows:

> “The judges of the Court of Appeal shall have power to certify to the Supreme Court any question or proposition of law arising in any cause pending before them concerning which they desire the instruction of that cfturt, for its proper decision, and thereupon the Supreme Court may either give its instructions on the question or proposition certified to it, which shall be binding upon the Court of Appeal in such case, or it may require the whole record to be sent up for its consideration, and thereupon shall decide the whole matter in controversy in the same manner as it had been on appeal directly to the Supreme Court.”

The power to certify is restricted to questions of law based on statements of fact found by the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court cannot be called upon to examine the record for the purpose of supplementing a partial statement of facts.

It is true that this court may require the entire record to be sent up, but that discretionary power is to be exercised only after the Court of Appeal has certified to the Supreme Court a question or proposition of law predicated on a complete statement of facts.

We therefore decline to answer the questions certified, and the clerk is instructed to return the record to the Court of Appeal, with a copy of this opinion.
§ 630.1110 Maintenance of temporary traffic control devices. To provide for the continued effectiveness of temporary traffic control devices, each agency shall develop and implement quality guidelines to help maintain the quality and adequacy of the temporary traffic control devices for the duration of the project. Agencies may choose to adopt existing quality guidelines such as those developed by the American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA) or other state highway agencies.[1] A level of inspection necessary to provide ongoing compliance with the quality guidelines shall be provided. Footnotes -
630.1110
[1] The American Traffic Safety Services Association's (ATSSA) Quality Guidelines for Work Zone Traffic Control Devices uses photos and written descriptions to help judge when a traffic control device has outlived its usefulness. These guidelines are available for purchase from ATSSA through the following URL: *http://www.atssa.com/store/bc_item_detail.jsp?productId=1 .* Similar guidelines are available from various State highway agencies. The Illinois Department of Transportation “Quality Standards for Work Zone Traffic Control Devices” is available online at *http://dot.state.il.us/workzone/wztcd2004r.pdf .* The Minnesota Department of Transportation “Quality Standards—Methods to determine whether the various traffic control devices are Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable” is available online at *http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/otepubl/fieldmanual2007/FM-2007-QualityStandards.pdf .*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 THAT WERE
FILED WITH THE COMPANY'S REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>1

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,203
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,203
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          261,647
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           600
<OTHER-SE>                                    (252,602)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,645
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               250,927
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (250,927)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (250,927)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (250,927)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.25)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Alexandria Division 

In the Matter of: 

 Chapter 13 

ASRA Q NOMANI 

 Case No. 15-13619-BFK 

 

 Debtor 

LOCAL RULE 3070 (1)(C) CERTIFICATION

Comes now the Trustee upon this Chapter 13 proceeding and files this 

certification that the Debtor(s) has failed to commence payments under the Plan as is 

required by 11 U.S.C. §1326(a)(1). 

December 9, 2015 /s/Thomas P. Gorman _______ 

Dated Thomas P. Gorman 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this 9th day of December, 2015, mailed a true copy of the 

foregoing Local Rule 3070 (1)(C) Certification to the following parties. 

Asra Q Nomani 

Chapter 13 Debtor 

409 Seneca Rd 

Great Falls, VA 22066 

Tommy Andrews, Jr., Esq. 

Attorney for Debtor 

122 N. Alfred St. 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

 

 ___/s/ Thomas P. Gorman_____ 

 Thomas P. Gorman

Case 15-13619-BFK Doc 20 Filed 12/09/15 Entered 12/09/15 13:21:08 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
§ 28.25 Exceptions based on a defendant's conduct. Subsection (c) of section 3600A makes the biological evidence preservation requirement inapplicable in two circumstances relating to action (or inaction) by the defendant: ( a ) *Waiver by defendant.* Section 3600A(c)(2) makes the biological evidence preservation requirement inapplicable if the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived DNA testing in a court proceeding conducted after the date of enactment, *i.e.*, after October 30, 2004. Hence, for example, if a defendant waives DNA testing in the context of a plea agreement, in a pretrial colloquy with the court, in the course of discovery in pretrial proceedings, or in a postconviction proceeding, and the proceeding in which the waiver occurs takes place after October 30, 2004, the biological evidence preservation requirement of section 3600A does not apply.
( b ) *Notice to defendant.* ( 1 ) Section 3600A(c)(3) makes the biological evidence preservation requirement inapplicable if the defendant is notified that the biological evidence may be destroyed “after a conviction becomes final and the defendant has exhausted all opportunities for direct review of the conviction,” and “the defendant does not file a motion under section 3600 within 180 days of receipt of the notice.”
( 2 ) Effective notice concerning the possible destruction of biological evidence for purposes of section 3600A(c)(3) cannot be given if the case is pending on direct review of the conviction before a court of appeals or the Supreme Court, if time remains for the defendant to file a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction in the court of appeals, or if time remains for the defendant to file a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court following the court of appeals' determination of an appeal of the conviction.
( 3 ) Once direct review has been completed, or the time for seeking direct review has expired, section 3600A(c)(3) allows notice to the defendant that biological evidence may be destroyed. The biological evidence preservation requirement of section 3600A thereafter does not apply, unless the defendant files a motion under 18 U.S.C. 3600 within 180 days of receipt of the notice. Notice to a defendant that biological evidence may be destroyed may be provided by certified mail, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons shall create a record concerning the delivery of such mail to an inmate. To determine whether a defendant has filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. 3600 within 180 days of receipt of such a notice, the agency providing the notice may obtain confirmation of delivery and the date of delivery by inquiry with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and may ascertain whether the defendant has filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. 3600 within 180 days of that date by checking the records of the district court which entered the judgment of conviction of the defendant for the offense or asking the United States Attorney's office in that district.