alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

Appointment of members of the Conciliation Body instituted by Commission Decision 94/442/EC of 1 July 1994 setting up a conciliation procedure in the context of the clearance of the accounts of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee Section

(2006/C 193/09)

----
#### § 710.707 Fair market value.

A highway agency shall receive fair market value for any concession agreement involving a federally funded highway.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                              ADZONE RESEARCH, INC.
                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AdZone Research, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB/A  (Amendment No. for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Charles Cardona, Chief Executive Officer,  Acting Chief Financial Officer and
Director of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

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

Date: July 13, 2005


/s/ Charles Cardona
----------------------
Charles Cardona, Chief Executive Officer
   and Acting Chief Financial Officer
### §541e. Availability of funds for acquisition of lands, etc., within added area

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 200306(a)(2) of title 54, moneys appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund shall be available for the acquisition of any lands, waters, or interests therein within the area added to the Siuslaw National Forest by this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 93–535, §6, Dec. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 1733; Pub. L. 113–287, §5(d)(15), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3265.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Pub. L. 113–287 substituted "section 200306(a)(2) of title 54" for "section 460l–9(a)(1) of this title".
!"!

  
!	

#
$%%$	&%&$'	'
$	

(
	)*)+,*-%.

	/%$
&&(	$%
	0$%-%.$	/%$&/(


	12%	/
3(%
)4560

""#"$

56 &%&$
	/
$%%$%7

5)6 3
	'
%
	$	*&&	
	'
&&	-%
	56


8%$%.2(	-%.*
	56&&(2/	*	%(*&&
	
	8%

(
-'	&	
	'8%
2%	
%%.
	$	
	
-&	
/%
2	

56 9.%%.
-/	4*)+*
	%$
$
&/
2


:)4*++*$.%%.(
	4*)+,*$(/
		2%&2		
	$	
%


2	*
	&&'
#	2*#
/;
	/9
<44*/%*#

+442/
:*+++	/

		/%%./

&%
	$	


'&&(	$%
	(=++>
&&&&
8$(&%/'/2$	%$&
(
/&$

8%%44/
	
/$2$
%	'/%%(

5 6 #
	&&%&&&$	&$%(
/<	2	

	
	$2

$*8%
2<%
*$	
-%$#	28%%.$(
%
	2	8%%$'

	'	%&$$	
-%$#	22($$%%
&%
	/%
#	2/'

	12%	
	$	/%%


	?$%
&%(
/7%&2	
%/&'(
/&'8%%

	
-%%
&&.	
2$
	$%/%&

546 
'&%-
%$((%
56(
/&$'(%
596
&/2

/$'%&%.

$-		'	
($%.&	%<'5@+6$'	
/$


	'
%	$	

5@6 #
&$	
((2	$(&%/	
-%$$
	%	.	 

	 
&

&&	%&%(2	%.2((&%/2%&	&%	
%6'/
2$	&'%.$



Case 17-13384-KHK Doc 35 Filed 11/08/19 Entered 11/08/19 13:33:23 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 3
$	/%$2$	=	2('&8
	%%6$%(	.2$	(%
)
	%%%62(&%%


	8%-
%$$'	
2	
	$		$%%(
	
(%$$-		'

	
($%.%(%$%/%$
	(
-	$8%
2(
/&%

&*2(&%&&

	%$'2(
&$	
<	(
.%A$'&%(&=	2('&8

$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

!&%"!%$	$

3%$9=	2('C2$.


%	/%
(
//$$ $
.	$

BDD#
/;
	/BBBBBBBBBBB BDD%(	$

9
&.	BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

#
/;
	/%(	$9
&.	*12%	

	#	2 
2&
	
	

++
	E%.
	* ++ + /
(	('F


&<$	%*G
)) 7%	<*G
))++)4+4

5+6@)))@ 5+6,4,4

G9H)@ )

F
(&2&,+))56	%%(%


#
	.
%.	$	8$
	$'$D
		-$2
&&(	'	%2	2
F
(&

2&,+))56

DD#
/;
	/BBBBBBBBBBBBBB

#
/;
	/*	#	2


%&')

Nov 8 2019 /s/ Klinette H. Kindred

Entered on Docket: November 8, 2019

Case 17-13384-KHK Doc 35 Filed 11/08/19 Entered 11/08/19 13:33:23 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 3

	


	'
$	


	
	

)4E-&$	

7%	<*G
))+44))

%(	$89
&.	*1



	'
	
	

+ /
(	('F

7%	<*G
))++

#
/;
	/

	#	2

++
	E%.
	* ++


&<$	%*G
)) 



Case 17-13384-KHK Doc 35 Filed 11/08/19 Entered 11/08/19 13:33:23 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 3
Case 18-10115-KHK Doc 44 Filed 07/18/18 Entered 07/18/18 15:34:13 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 15
Case 18-10115-KHK Doc 44 Filed 07/18/18 Entered 07/18/18 15:34:13 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 15
Case 18-10115-KHK Doc 44 Filed 07/18/18 Entered 07/18/18 15:34:13 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 15
Case 18-10115-KHK Doc 44 Filed 07/18/18 Entered 07/18/18 15:34:13 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 15
Case 18-10115-KHK Doc 44 Filed 07/18/18 Entered 07/18/18 15:34:13 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 15
Case 18-10115-KHK Doc 44 Filed 07/18/18 Entered 07/18/18 15:34:13 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 15
Case 18-10115-KHK Doc 44 Filed 07/18/18 Entered 07/18/18 15:34:13 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 15
Case 18-10115-KHK Doc 44 Filed 07/18/18 Entered 07/18/18 15:34:13 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 15
Case 18-10115-KHK Doc 44 Filed 07/18/18 Entered 07/18/18 15:34:13 Desc Main

Document Page 9 of 15
Case 18-10115-KHK Doc 44 Filed 07/18/18 Entered 07/18/18 15:34:13 Desc Main

Document Page 10 of 15
Case 18-10115-KHK Doc 44 Filed 07/18/18 Entered 07/18/18 15:34:13 Desc Main

Document Page 11 of 15
Case 18-10115-KHK Doc 44 Filed 07/18/18 Entered 07/18/18 15:34:13 Desc Main

Document Page 12 of 15
Case 18-10115-KHK Doc 44 Filed 07/18/18 Entered 07/18/18 15:34:13 Desc Main

Document Page 13 of 15
Case 18-10115-KHK Doc 44 Filed 07/18/18 Entered 07/18/18 15:34:13 Desc Main

Document Page 14 of 15
Case 18-10115-KHK Doc 44 Filed 07/18/18 Entered 07/18/18 15:34:13 Desc Main

Document Page 15 of 15
§ 51.13 Examples of changes. Changes affecting voting include, but are not limited to, the following examples: ( a ) Any change in qualifications or eligibility for voting.
( b ) Any change concerning registration, balloting, and the counting of votes and any change concerning publicity for or assistance in registration or voting.
( c ) Any change with respect to the use of a language other than English in any aspect of the electoral process.
( d ) Any change in the boundaries of voting precincts or in the location of polling places.
( e ) Any change in the constituency of an official or the boundaries of a voting unit (*e.g.,* through redistricting, annexation, deannexation, incorporation, dissolution, merger, reapportionment, changing to at-large elections from district elections, or changing to district elections from at-large elections).
( f ) Any change in the method of determining the outcome of an election (e.g., by requiring a majority vote for election or the use of a designated post or place system).
( g ) Any change affecting the eligibility of persons to become or remain candidates, to obtain a position on the ballot in primary or general elections, or to become or remain holders of elective offices.
( h ) Any change in the eligibility and qualification procedures for independent candidates.
( i ) Any change in the term of an elective office or an elected official, or any change in the offices that are elective (*e.g.,* by shortening or extending the term of an office; changing from election to appointment; transferring authority from an elected to an appointed official that, in law or in fact, eliminates the elected official's office; or staggering the terms of offices).
( j ) Any change affecting the necessity of or methods for offering issues and propositions for approval by referendum.
( k ) Any change affecting the right or ability of persons to participate in pre-election activities, such as political campaigns.
( l ) Any change that transfers or alters the authority of any official or governmental entity regarding who may enact or seek to implement a voting qualification, prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting.
[52 FR 490, Jan. 6, 1987, as amended by Order No. 3262-2011, 76 FR 21244, Apr. 15, 2011]
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Joseph C. Ruszkiewicz, Deceased. Marya K. Martuszewska et al., as Executors of Joseph C. Ruszkiewicz, Deceased, Appellants; Franklin B. Rogger, Respondent.

Present— Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Harris and MeCurn, JJ.
§ 660.511 Eligibility. ( a ) The MTMC has the responsibility for determining the eligibility of proposed improvements for financing with defense access roads funds. The evaluation report will be furnished to MTMC for its use in making the determination of eligibility and certification of importance to the national defense. The criteria upon which MTMC will base its determination of eligibility are included in the Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual, Volume 6, Chapter 9, Section 5, Attachment 2.[1]
( b ) If the project is determined to be eligible for financing either in whole or in part with defense access road funds, MTMC will certify the project as important to the national defense and will authorize expenditure of defense access road funds. The Commander, MTMC, is the only representative of the DOD officially authorized to make the certification required by section 210, title 23, U.S.C., in behalf of the Secretary of Defense.
Footnotes -
660.511
[1] This document is available for inspection and copying from the FHWA headquarters and field offices as prescribed by 49 CFR part 7, appendix D.
§ 924.5 Policy. ( a ) Each State shall develop, implement, and evaluate on an annual basis a HSIP that has the objective to significantly reduce fatalities and serious injuries resulting from crashes on all public roads.
( b ) HSIP funds shall be used for highway safety improvement projects that are consistent with the State's SHSP. HSIP funds should be used to maximize opportunities to advance highway safety improvement projects that have the greatest potential to reduce the State's roadway fatalities and serious injuries.
( c ) Safety improvements should also be incorporated into projects funded by other Federal-aid programs, such as the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) and the Surface Transportation Program (STP). Safety improvements that are provided as part of a broader Federal-aid project should be funded from the same source as the broader project.
( d ) Eligibility for Federal funding of projects for traffic control devices under this part is subject to a State or local/tribal jurisdiction's substantial conformance with the National MUTCD or FHWA-approved State MUTCDs and supplements in accordance with part 655, subpart F, of this chapter.
#### Jessie ROYSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NHP MANAGEMENT COMPANY; Apartment Investment & Management Company, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-2193.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 30, 2002.

Decided May 16, 2002.

Edith A. Lawson-Jackson, E.A. Lawson-Jackson & Associates, Bowie, Maryland, for Appellant. Jonathan W. Greenbaum, Adrian V. Nelson, II, Gina Janeiro Lisher, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Jessie Royster appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in this action brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 (West 1994 *&*Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Royster v. NHP Management Co.,*No. CA-00-290-L (D.Md. Sept. 13, 2001). We 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 Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

_______________________ ____ No. 02

- 19

- 00136

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 16th Di strict Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 18

- 7985

- 16

Before Birdwell , Bassel , and Womack, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### UHP, LP D 

### / B 

### / A 

### U NIVERSITY 

### B EHAVIORAL 

### H EALTH O F 

### D ENTON AND 

### N ORTHPOINTE 

### F AMIL Y 

### C ENTER AT 

### UBH D ENTON 

### , App ellants

V


### . D ONNA 

### K RELLA 

### , I NDIVIDUALLY AND AS T HE 

### R EPRESENTATIVE OF THE



### E STATE OF 

### A MANDA 

### M ARYE 

### H UGHES 

### , Appellee2 MEMOR A

NDUM OPINION AND JUDGM ENT After UHP, L P and Northpointe Family Center at UBH Denton ( collectively UHP) filed this appeal , UHP and appellee Donn a Krella s ett led th eir a ppellate dispute

. In their settleme n t document fi led with this court , they agree d that the expert report Krella file d in the trial court is deficient as to UHP , but they also agree d to a thirty

- day ex tension under civil pr actice and remedies cod e section 7 4.351 (c)

. Tex. Civ . Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 74.351 (c)

. UHP a nd Krella have thus filed a “Joint Motion to Reverse Ord er Below Pursuant to Agreement,” in which the y ask this court

to “render judgment reversing the ju dgment of the tri al court in f avor of [th eir] settlement, r emanding the matter to the trial court so that it may grant the agreed thirty [

- ] day ex tension to corr ect deficiencies in the [r]eport regarding Kr ella ’s healthcare liability claims against UHP. ” 1 When we conclude t hat a n expe rt report is de fic ient, we do n ot render; instead, we remand for the trial court to consider whether to grant a thirt y
- day exten sion. See,
e.g. , J e pson v. Wyrick , N o. 02

- 18

- 00148

- CV , 2019 WL 2042303, at *11

– 12 (Tex. App.

–– Fort Wort h May 9 , 2019, n o pet.) ( me m. op.). Accordi ngly, we construe the joint
motion to ask this court to set aside the trial court ’ s March 27, 2019 orde r without regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial court so that the tr ial court may

1 UHP ’ s motion alternatively requests that this court also render an order g ranting a t hi rty

- day extens ion for Krella to attempt to cure the report’s deficiencies, but in the agreement attached to the m otion , it is unclear whether Krella agreed for this court to grant that relief

–– although it i s clear that K rella agree d for the tr ial court t o do so

.3 issue orders in accordance with the p ar ties ’ agreement
. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). We therefore grant the motion, set aside the trial court’s orde r without regard t o the merits , and remand the case to the trial court to effectuate the parties’ settlement agreement. Id. ; see City of Ba y City v. Knapp , N o. 13

- 15

- 00164

- CV , 2015 WL 6651822, at *1 (Tex. App.

–– Corpus Christi

– Edinburg Oct. 29, 2015, no pet .) ( m em. op.)

. Per Curiam Delive red: August 8, 2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940

Release No. 35146 / February 27, 2024

In the Matter of

BONDBLOXX ETF TRUST

BONDBLOXX INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

700 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 250

Larkspur, CA 94939

(812-15526)

ORDER UNDER SECTION 6(c) OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940 

GRANTING AN EXEMPTION FROM SECTION 15(a) OF THE ACT AND CERTAIN 

DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS

BondBloxx ETF Trust and BondBloxx Investment Management Corporation, filed an 

application on November 24, 2023, and amendments to the application on January 16,

2024 and January 26, 2024, requesting an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company 

Act of 1940 (the “Act”) exempting applicants from section 15(a) of the Act, as well as from 

certain disclosure requirements. The order permits applicants to enter into and materially amend 

subadvisory agreements without shareholder approval and also grants relief from certain 

disclosure requirements.

On January 30, 2024, a notice of the filing of the application was issued (Investment Company 

Act Release No. 35119). The notice gave interested persons an opportunity to request a hearing 

and stated that an order granting the application would be issued unless a hearing was ordered. 

No request for a hearing has been filed, and the Commission has not ordered a hearing.

The matter has been considered and it is found, on the basis of the information set forth in the 

application, as amended, that granting the requested exemption is appropriate in the public 

interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the 

policy and provisions of the Act. 

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, under section 6(c) of the Act, that the relief requested by BondBloxx ETF 

Trust and BondBloxx Investment Management Corporation (File No. 812-15526) is granted, 

effective immediately, subject to the conditions contained in the application, as amended.

For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.

Sherry Haywood, 

Assistant Secretary.
#### § 778.101 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to establish the requirements for a State to participate in the Pilot Program for eliminating duplication of environmental reviews (“Pilot Program”), authorized under 23 U.S.C. 330. The Pilot Program allows States to conduct environmental reviews and make approvals for projects under State environmental laws and regulations instead of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.*).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0467

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ADAM JOSEPH HEITKEMPER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including April 1, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 24 2022

02/24/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0467
### §460u–23. Acquisition of interest in area VII–A

#### (a) Public access requirements

The Secretary may acquire only such interest in that portion of area VII–A which is described in subsection (b) as the Secretary determines is necessary to assure public access over said portion of area VII–A.

#### (b) Portion of area VII–A subject to acquisition

The portion of area VII–A, as designated on the map referred to in section 460u of this title, to which subsection (a) applies is a parcel of land bounded—

(1) on the east by a line three hundred feet east of the electrical transmission line crossing area VII–A on January 1, 1979;

(2) on the west by a line fifty feet west of such electrical transmission line; and

(3) on the north and south by the northern and southern boundaries, respectively, of area VII–A.

#### (c) Boundaries of area VII–A

Area VII–A includes the bed of the railroad tracks forming the northern and northwestern boundaries of this area and extends to the northern edge of the bed of the railroad tracks forming the southern boundaries of this area.

#### (d) Inclusion in area I–D

Area I–D includes the bed of the railroad tracks along the northern boundary of this area.

#### (e) Exclusions from area VII–C

The area designated as area VII–C on the map referred to in section 460u of this title does not include approximately 1.3 acres of land on which the Linde Air Products plant is situated, nor does it include approximately 1 acre of land on which the Old Union Station building and the adjacent REA building are situated. Except as provided in the foregoing sentence, area VII–C extends to, but does not include, the beds of the railroad tracks forming the northern and southern boundaries of such area.

(Pub. L. 89–761, §23, as added Pub. L. 96–612, §1(13), Dec. 28, 1980, 94 Stat. 3577.)
#### J. C. Masters, Appellee, v. Harry Wagenseller et al., Appellants.

Gen. No. 5345.

*Practice—when special interrogatories submitted too late.*Special interrogatories not submitted until after the arguments of counsel were closed and the jury instructed, are properly refused.

Assumpsit. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Livingston county; the Hon. G. W. Patton, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the April term, 1910.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 18, 1910.

White & Tuesburg, for appellants.

E. A. Agard and Bert W. Adsit, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellants with appellee and another party were partners in the ownership of some stallions and in breeding horses. Appellants bought the interest of appellee in the business and agreed to pay him $300, less whatever he owed the firm for stallion service. They disagreed as to the amount appellee owed for such service, and appellee brought suit in assumpsit to recover the $300. Appellants filed the general issue, a plea of tender of the sum of $175 and a plea of set-off on which issues were joined. Appellee recovered a judgment for $205 or $30 more than the sum tendered.

Appellants contend that the court erred in refusing to submit to the jury certain special findings of fact requested by them. The bill of particulars shows that appellants did not submit the special findings until after the instructions had been given to the jury. Section 79 of the Practice Act requires that a party desiring special findings of fact to be made by a jury must submit such questions of fact to the adverse party before the commencement of the arguments to the jury. Appellants not having submitted such questions *50of fact until after the arguments were .closed and the jury instructed, the court did not err in refusing them, regardless of whether they were or were not properly framed.

The printed rules of the partnership provided that if the owner of a mare sold her before she foaled then the stallion service was at once due and payable. The testimony offered by appellee showed that there was an agreement that this rule should "not apply to the owners of mares who sold to persons residing in the vicinity of the owner. Appellants denied that there was any such change in the printed rule. Another printed rule of the company made it necessary before the partnership was entitled to stallion service that a foal should stand and suck, and it was a disputed question whether a certain foal did stand and suck. It was also a disputed question as to how many mares appellee had bred to the stallions of the partnership. The evidence was very evenly balanced on all the controverted questions of fact. The jury believed the evidence for the appellee. The trial judge saw the witnesses and approved the finding of the jury, and we see no reason why this court should invade-the province of the jury. The judgment is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*