alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §133. Time for prosecuting application

Upon failure of the applicant to prosecute the application within six months after any action therein, of which notice has been given or mailed to the applicant, or within such shorter time, not less than thirty days, as fixed by the Director in such action, the application shall be regarded as abandoned by the parties thereto.

(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–582; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, §13206(b)(1)(B), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1906; Pub. L. 112–211, title II, §202(b)(5), Dec. 18, 2012, 126 Stat. 1536.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §37 (R.S. 4894, amended (1) Mar. 3, 1897, ch. 391, §4, 29 Stat. 692, 693, (2) July 6, 1916, ch. 225, §1, 39 Stat. 345, 347–8, (3) Mar. 2, 1927, ch. 273, §1, 44 Stat. 1335, (4) Aug. 7, 1939, ch. 568, 53 Stat. 1264).

The opening clause of the corresponding section of existing statute is omitted as having no present day meaning or value and the last two sentences are omitted for inclusion in section 267. The notice is stated as given or mailed. Language is revised.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2012—Pub. L. 112–211 struck out ", unless it be shown to the satisfaction of the Director that such delay was unavoidable" before period at end.

2002—Pub. L. 107–273 made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113. See 1999 Amendment note below.

1999—Pub. L. 106–113, as amended by Pub. L. 107–273, substituted "Director" for "Commissioner" in two places.

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

#### Effective Date of 2012 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 112–211 effective on the date that is 1 year after Dec. 18, 2012, applicable to patents issued before, on, or after that effective date and patent applications pending on or filed after that effective date, and not effective with respect to patents in litigation commenced before that effective date, see section 203 of Pub. L. 112–211, set out as an Effective Date note under section 27 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1999 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 106–113 effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4731] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.
### [§3561. Repealed. Pub. L. 111–204, §2(h)(6)(A)(i), July 22, 2010, 124 Stat. 2231]

Section, added Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title VIII, §831(a)(1), Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1186, related to identification of errors made by executive agencies in payments to contractors and recovery of amounts erroneously paid.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-07-13T18:41:45-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
SERVED: August 13, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013-0619 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011NM060014) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the 

ie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judg 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1 

Robert Spitzer, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

FPCX: 425-227-1007 

ONE COPY 

Michael L. Dworkin, Respondent's Counsel 

Michael L. Dworkin and Associates 

465 California Street, Suite 210 

San Francisco, CA 94104-1808 

TEL: 415-421-2500 

FAX: 415-421-2560 

Todd C. Emerson, Esq. 

Director - Government and Legal Affairs 

SkyWest Airlines, Respondent 

444 South River Road 

St. George, UT 84 790 

TEL: 435-634-3530 

FPCX: 435-634-3505 

FDMS Nos. FAA-2013-0619 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (El1-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

-3-
#### Samuel Hersh, Respondent, v. Helen R. Roedels et al., Individually and as Trustees under the Will of Mary Larkin, Deceased, et al., Appellants.

In an action to recover damages for the negligent maintenance of a drop ladder *732on a fire escape whereby respondent who was climbing thereon while engaged in making repairs, was precipitated to the ground, judgment modified on the law by dismissing the amended complaint as to the appellant Sehoen, with costs. The judgment as so modified is reversed on the facts and new trial granted as to the other appellants, with costs to abide the event, unless within ten days after service of the order to be entered hereon, together with notice of entry thereof, respondent stipulate to reduce the judgment to $30,000, in which event the judgment as so modified and as so reduced is affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order reducing verdict dismissed, without costs. The managing agent was not liable for his nonfeasance. *(Christianson*v. *Breen,*288 N. Y. 435; *Greco*v. *Levy,*257 App. Div. 209, afEd. 282 N. Y. 575.) In the light of all the proof and particularly the motion pictures, the amount of the judgment is excessive. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel and Wenzel, JJ., concur; Schmidt, J., concurs in the modification dismissing the complaint as to appellant Sehoen, but dissents as to the other appellants and votes to reverse the judgment and to dismiss the complaint as to them, with the following memorandum: I do not believe there was proof of negligence on the part of the owners (appellants Roedels and Truitt) and I do not believe there was proof of freedom of contributory negligence on the part of the respondent. There is no proof that the superintendent told the respondent how he was to get from the step ladder to the fire escape, and the inference to be drawn from the testimony is that using the step ladder he would lower the fire escape ladder to the ground and thus reach the fire escape. The proximate cause of this accident was the acrobatic effort made by the respondent to get to the fire escape platform without lowering the ladder. In doing this he was not following the superintendent’s instructions and was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
### **CHAPTERS 903 THROUGH 999—RESERVED**

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Pub. L. 113–237, §3(b)(8), Dec. 18, 2014, 128 Stat. 2837, added placeholder for chapters 903 to 999.
# L_2015307EN.01000101.xml

| 25.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 307/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 307/1

---

Notice concerning the entry into force of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part

The Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part (1), signed in Brussels on 6 October 2010, will enter into force on 13 December 2015.

1

---

(1)  
  OJ L 127, 14.5.2011, p. 6.

1

---
DENIED and Opinion Filed February 13, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-23-01219-CV

IN RE EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-21-04071-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Pedersen, III, Nowell, and Miskel

Opinion by Justice Nowell

Before the Court is relator’s January 30, 2024 amended petition for writ of 

mandamus. Relator challenges respondent Honorable Sally Montgomery’s 

February 7, 2023 Order denying relator’s Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non 

Conveniens and November 20, 2023 Order denying relator’s Motion to Vacate Order 

Denying Its Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens and to Reconsider and 

Continue the Stay. Relator also appears to challenge an Order dated May 26, 2023 

wherein the Honorable Martin Hoffman denied relator’s motion to recuse Judge 

Montgomery.
–2–

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate 

remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.

proceeding). To the extent relator seeks mandamus relief against Judge 

Montgomery, after reviewing relator’s amended petition and the record before us, 

we conclude relator has failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.

To the extent relator seeks mandamus relief against Judge Hoffman, relator’s 

amended petition does comply with rule 52.3(a), (d), (f), (h), or (i). Thus, relator’s 

amended petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure for consideration of mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.3(a), 

(d), (f), (h), (i); see also In re Jones, Nos. 05-23-00492-CV, 05-23-00493-CV, 2023 

WL 4101440, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 21, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Even if we review the amended petition and record before us, we conclude that 

relator failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief against Judge Hoffman.

Accordingly, we deny relator’s amended petition for writ of mandamus. TEX.

R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
–3–

Also before the Court is relator’s January 18, 2024 Verified Motion for 

Temporary Relief and to Stay the Case Pending Resolution of the Pending 

Mandamus Petition. We deny the motion as moot.

231219f.p05 /Erin A. Nowell//

ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOUND IN THE COMPANY'S 10QSB FOR THE
YEAR-TO-DATE AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             838
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   838
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     838
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,047
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,934
<OTHER-SE>                                    (58,143)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       838
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,565
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,565
<INCOME-TAX>                                       907
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,472
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,472
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
NRC NEWSUNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-06-044                                                           November 28, 2006CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416       E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC BEGINS SPECIAL INSPECTION AT CATAWBA NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II office in Atlanta began an inspection this weekat the Catawba nuclear power plant, operated by Duke Energy near York, S.C., to look into severalissues involving water flowing into below-grade electrical penetrations. 

Water from the Catawba plant’s Unit 2 cooling towers flowed into a diesel generator room inMay and plant employees determined that other electrical conduits and penetrations had degradedseals.  During a heavy rainstorm in late August, water entered the turbine building through unsealedelectrical penetrations and that rainwater accumulated around some electrical transformers.  DukeEnergy initiated corrective actions for degraded penetration seals and entered the issues into thecompany’s corrective action program.  

An NRC inspection in early November determined that the Standby Shutdown facility was alsosusceptible to flooding from two possible sources.  

The special inspection will review the facts surrounding the degraded seals in some areas andthe lack of seals in others, determine if there are any generic issues for other nuclear plants, and assessthe company’s overall response and investigation including areas of the plant where the lack ofwatertight seals or degradation might be an issue.  

The NRC will document its findings and conclusions in a report to be issued within 30 days ofthe inspection.

###

News releases are available through a free list serve subscription at the following web address:  http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html .  The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link.  E-mail notifications are sentto subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's web site.
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-20012

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERTO RIOJAS, JR.; DAVID CANTU; PEDRO MORENO; RAMIRO RIOJAS;

LUIS MORENO; LAZARO MORENO; IRELA YVETTE RIOJAS GONZALEZ;

MELBA RIOJAS MORENO; ROSANNA RIOJAS GUERRERO; JOSE LUIS CANTU;

EDUARDO MORENO; RENE GONZALEZ; CESAR MORENO, SR.; RENATO RIOJAS;

a/k/a Renato Riojas-Sandoval,

Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-95-CR-142

- - - - - - - - - -

July 11, 1997

Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pedro Moreno and Melba Riojas Moreno appeal from the

district court’s order revoking the magistrate judge’s order of

release pending trial. The district court’s decision rests on

its conclusion that both Pedro Moreno and Melba Riojas Moreno
No. 97-20012

- 2 -

present a danger to the community and no conditions will

reasonably assure safety, and that they present a risk of flight 

and no conditions will reasonably assure their appearance as

required. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)-(g). The district court’s

conclusions as to Pedro Moreno are supported by the record. See

United States v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992). The

district court's conclusion that no conditions will reasonably

assure Melba Riojas Moreno's appearance is supported by the

record. The district court’s detention order as to Pedro Moreno

and Melba Riojas Moreno is AFFIRMED.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Cynthia L. Clack

, * From the 318th District

Court of Midland County,

Trial Court No. FM

- 47,213

.

Vs. No. 11

- 12

- 00269

- CV * December 19, 2013

Larry Wollschlager, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the

judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by reason of this

appeal are taxed against Cynthia L. Clack

.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1892 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1892

 To provide authorizations of appropriations for the global initiative 
                 to end the continuing menace of polio.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2003

  Mr. Payne introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by 
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide authorizations of appropriations for the global initiative 
                 to end the continuing menace of polio.

    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 ``Ending Polio in Our Time Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

     The Congress finds as follows:
            (1) Polio has caused millions of casualties through 
        history, paralyzing millions and killing untold numbers of 
        others.
            (2) Polio remains a public health threat in today's world, 
        despite being easily preventable by vaccination.
            (3) Polio is now contained to seven countries, with the 
        distinct possibility that it can be once and forever 
        extinguished as an affliction on mankind within five years by 
        ensuring the vaccination of all children in these countries 
        under the age of five.
            (4) A Global Polio Eradication Initiative exists that seeks 
        to once and forever end polio as an illness, which includes 
        efforts underway by the Centers for Disease Control and 
        Prevention.
            (5) The United States has the capacity to act to speed the 
        eradication of polio by assisting in the targeting of its few 
        remaining reservoirs.

SEC. 3. FUNDING FOR POLIO ERADICATION ACTIVITIES.

    For the purpose of carrying out global polio eradication activities 
through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there is 
authorized to be appropriated $275,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 
2004 and 2005.
                                 <all>
```
MEMORANDUM

TO: Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0464

Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

– Second Round

FROM: Scott Mathias

Air Quality Policy Division, EPA OAQPS

SUBJECT: EPA’s Intended Designation for Franklin County, Missouri for 2010 Primary SO 2

NAAQS

On March 8, 2016, representatives from EPA and Senator Claire McCaskill’s office discussed

via telephone the intended designation for Franklin County, Missouri for the 2010 Primary SO 2 NAAQS.

The following representatives were present:

Scott Mathias

– EPA OAQPS

Richard “Chet” Wayland

– EPA OAQPS

Sara Terry

– EPA OAQPS

Amy Algoe

- Eakin

– EPA Region 7

Matthew Davis

– EPA OCIR

Patrick Bond

– Office of Senator Claire McCaskill
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Marguerite D. Hill, Respondent, against Samaritan Hospital et al., Respondents, and New York Hospital et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by New York Hospital and its insurance carrier from an award of compensation in favor of claimant. The Workmen’s Compensation Board found that on August 31,1938, claimant began her training as a student nurse at the Samaritan Hospital and completed it on September 7, 1941. Prom August 31, 1939, to May 1, 1940, she was sent to New York Hospital by Samaritan Hospital for training under an agreement between the two hospitals. While at the New York Hospital she worked in the tuberculosis section. She completed her course on September 7,1941, and was thereafter engaged as a staff nurse by Samaritan Hospital. While employed by the Samaritan Hospital she was assigned to *829care for tubercular patients. The board also found that during the course of her employment with the Samaritan Hospital and the New York Hospital claimant was exposed to and came in direct contact with tubercular germs and that she did everything required in treating the patients, such as bathing, dressing and medications, all of which caused her to suffer from pulmonary tuberculosis. The board also found that on February 10, 1942, claimant became disabled because of tuberculosis due to the nature of her employment which was contracted by her within twelve months prior to the date of her disablement. The board made an award against the Samaritan Hospital as general employer and the New York Hospital as special employer and their insurance carriers. The Samaritan Hospital and its insurance carrier had paid their proportionate share of the award. The objections to the award raised by appellants are without merit. Award affirmed, with costs to the Samaritan Hospital and its insurance carrier against the appellants. Hill, P. J., Heffeman, Foster and Bussell, JJ., concur; Brewster, J., taking no park