alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 315.6 Expiration of contact lens prescriptions. ( a ) *In general.* A contact lens prescription shall expire: ( 1 ) On the date specified by the law of the State in which the prescription was written, if that date is one year or more after the issue date of the prescription;
( 2 ) Not less than one year after the issue date of the prescription if such State law specifies no date or specifies a date that is less than one year after the issue date of the prescription; or
( 3 ) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, on the date specified by the prescriber, if that date is based on the medical judgment of the prescriber with respect to the ocular health of the patient.
( b ) *Special rules for prescriptions of less than one year.* ( 1 ) If a prescription expires in less than one year, the specific reasons for the medical judgment referred to in paragraph (a)(3) of this section shall be documented in the patient's medical record with sufficient detail to allow for review by a qualified professional in the field.
( 2 ) The documentation described in the paragraph above shall be maintained for a period of not less than three years, and it must be available for inspection by the Federal Trade Commission, its employees, and its representatives.
( 3 ) No prescriber shall include an expiration date on a prescription that is less than the period of time that he or she recommends for a reexamination of the patient that is medically necessary.
VACATED and Opinion Filed May 19, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-00688-CV

RICHARD P. DALE, JR., Appellant

V.

PLAZA AT TURTLE CREEK RESIDENCES ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-05411

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Fillmore, Myers, and Evans 

Opinion by Justice Myers

Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to vacate the judgment below and dismiss the 

appeal. The parties have informed the Court that they have settled their differences. 

Accordingly, we grant the parties’ motion, vacate the trial court’s judgment, and dismiss the 

underlying case and the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A).

140688F.P05

/ Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

RICHARD P. DALE, JR., Appellant

No. 05-14-00688-CV V.

PLAZA AT TURTLE CREEK 

RESIDENCES ASSOCIATION, INC., 

Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas.

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-05411.

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. 

Justices Fillmore and Evans, participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

VACATED and this appeal and the underlying case is DISMISSED.

Subject to any agreement between the parties, it is ORDERED that appellee Plaza at 

Turtle Creek Residences Association, Inc. recover its costs of the appeal from appellant Richard 

P. Dale, Jr. 

Judgment entered this 19th day of May, 2015.
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. 08-10676

ALICE SHOCKEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

No. 3:06-CV-1982

Before SMITH, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alice Shockey sued for age discrimination after she was fired. The district

court denied relief, concluding that Shockey had been terminated for poor performance.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 5, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10676

2

We have read the briefs and pertinent parts of the record, have consulted

the relevant caselaw, and have heard the arguments of counsel. We find no error, and certainly no clear error, in the district court’s findings of fact or conclusions of law. In summary, the court correctly found that the employer “terminated Plaintiff because it held a good faith belief that Plaintiff did not meet her quota[, and P]laintiff, in fact, did not meet her quota, or meet the expectations laid

out in her Performance Improvement Plan.”

The judgment is AFFIRMED.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsHistory and Archives Contribute to the Success of Space Flight ProgramsFinal Paper, not the Abstract, is attached: This report discusses how history can be used by management, engineering, and operations personnel within space flight programs. Works by professional historians and sociologists inform key decision makers and policy specialists on lessons learned from space flight program management successes and failures, as well as from legislative affairs, policy making, and commercial space efforts. Vehicle engineering history written by engineers for an engineering or operations audience informs project management and technical personnel on lessons learned, best practices, and the rationale behind the design and operation of flight vehicles and supporting ground systems. Archives play a critical role in supporting the efforts of both professional historians and flight program personnel. Suggestions are made concerning how professional historians could leverage the interests and knowledge of flight program personnel to obtain more insight that is needed to support historical research efforts.Document ID20190000085Acquisition SourceJohnson Space CenterDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsGoodman, John L.*(Odyssey Space Research, LLC Houston, TX, United States)*Date AcquiredJanuary 16, 2019Publication DateDecember 1, 2018Subject CategoryDocumentation And Information ScienceAstronautics (General)Report/Patent NumberNASA/CR-2018-220044JSC-E-DAA-TN61359Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.KeywordsArchiveHistoryKnowledge ManagementAvailable DownloadsNameType20190000085.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Attachment 19

Skin Sensitization Study

Sanitized
Name of Subsidiary
    
    OwnershipSouth Glen Eagles Drive, LLC
    
    
    51
    %Hwy 46 and
Bluffton Pkwy, LLC
    
    
    51
    %AARD LECA LSS Lonestar, LLC
    
    
    51
    %AARD LECA VL1, LLC
    
    
    51
    %AARD-Charmar Greeley, LLC
    
    
    51
    %AARD-Charmar
Greeley Firestone, LLC
    
    
    51
    %AARD-Econo Lube Stonegate, LLC
    
    
    51
    %Buckeye AZ, LLC
    
    
    51
    %AARD-Cypress Sound, LLC
    
    
    51
    %AARD Esterra Mesa 1, LLC
    
    
    100
    %CapTerra Fund I, LLC
    
    
    100
    %
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 11, 2009 

d0831 

Order 

 

September 11, 2009 

138626 

MARY CIPRIANO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 138626 

 COA: 289393 

Macomb CC: 91-004641-DO 

SALVATORE CIPRIANO, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 8, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### §14043b–3. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 14043b–3 was editorially reclassified as section 12444 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §15812. Advanced Building Efficiency Testbed

#### (a) Establishment

The Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of General Services, shall establish an Advanced Building Efficiency Testbed program for the development, testing, and demonstration of advanced engineering systems, components, and materials to enable innovations in building technologies. The program shall evaluate efficiency concepts for government and industry buildings, and demonstrate the ability of next generation buildings to support individual and organizational productivity and health (including by improving indoor air quality) as well as flexibility and technological change to improve environmental sustainability. Such program shall complement and not duplicate existing national programs.

#### (b) Participants

The program established under subsection (a) shall be led by a university with the ability to combine the expertise from numerous academic fields including, at a minimum, intelligent workplaces and advanced building systems and engineering, electrical and computer engineering, computer science, architecture, urban design, and environmental and mechanical engineering. Such university shall partner with other universities and entities who have established programs and the capability of advancing innovative building efficiency technologies.

#### (c) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section $6,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2008, to remain available until expended. For any fiscal year in which funds are expended under this section, the Secretary shall provide one-third of the total amount to the lead university described in subsection (b), and provide the remaining two-thirds to the other participants referred to in subsection (b) on an equal basis.

(Pub. L. 109–58, title I, §107, Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 612.)
### §1396q. Application of provisions of subchapter II relating to subpoenas

The provisions of subsections (d) and (e) of section 405 of this title shall apply with respect to this subchapter to the same extent as they are applicable with respect to subchapter II, except that, in so applying such subsections, and in applying section 405(l) of this title thereto, with respect to this subchapter, any reference therein to the Commissioner of Social Security or the Social Security Administration shall be considered a reference to the Secretary or the Department of Health and Human Services, respectively.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XIX, §1918, as added Pub. L. 98–369, div. B, title III, §2370(a), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 1110; amended Pub. L. 103–296, title I, §108(d)(5), Aug. 15, 1994, 108 Stat. 1486.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–296 inserted before period at end ", except that, in so applying such subsections, and in applying section 405(l) of this title thereto, with respect to this subchapter, any reference therein to the Commissioner of Social Security or the Social Security Administration shall be considered a reference to the Secretary or the Department of Health and Human Services, respectively".

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

#### Effective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–296 effective Mar. 31, 1995, see section 110(a) of Pub. L. 103–296, set out as a note under section 401 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 98–369, div. B, title III, §2370(b), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 1110, provided that: "The amendment made by this section [enacting this section] shall become effective on the date of the enactment of this Act [July 18, 1984]."
No: 16-060 October 20, 2016

Contact: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC To Issue Levy County New Reactor Licenses,

Following Conclusion of Mandatory Hearing

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has cleared the way for the agency’s Office of New 

Reactors to issue two Combined Licenses (COLs) for Duke Energy’s Levy County site in Florida. 

Based on the mandatory hearing on Duke’s application, the Commission found the staff’s review 

adequate to make the necessary regulatory safety and environmental findings.

Following the Commissioners’ direction, the NRC staff will work to issue the COLs promptly. 

The licenses will authorize Duke Energy Florida to build and operate two AP1000 reactors at the site, 

near Inglis in Levy County. The staff will impose conditions on the license, including:

• Specific actions associated with the agency’s post-Fukushima requirements for mitigation 

strategies and spent fuel pool instrumentation; and

• A pre-startup schedule for implementing post-Fukushima aspects of the new reactors’ 

emergency preparedness plans and procedures.

Progress Energy Florida (now Duke Energy Florida) submitted its COL application for Levy 

County on July 30, 2008. The NRC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards independently 

reviewed those aspects of the Levy County application that concern safety. The committee provided the 

results of its review to the Commission on Dec. 7, 2011, and provided the results of its review of 

several exemption requests on April 18, 2016. The NRC completed its environmental review and issued 

the final environmental impact statement for the proposed Levy County reactors in April 2012. The 

NRC certified the amended 1,100-megawatt AP1000 design in 2012. More information on the 

certification process is available on the NRC website.
### §14194. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 103–322, title XXVII, §270004, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2092, which related to responsibilities of the Commission, was omitted as obsolete.
### §16531. Definitions

In this subchapter:

#### (1) Department

The term "Department" means the Department of Energy.

#### (2) Institution of higher education

The term "institution of higher education" has the meaning given the term in section 1001(a) of title 20.

#### (3) National Laboratory

The term "National Laboratory" has the meaning given the term in section 15801 of this title.

#### (4) Secretary

The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Energy.

(Pub. L. 110–69, title V, §5002, Aug. 9, 2007, 121 Stat. 600.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to in introductory provisions, was in the original "this title", meaning title V of Pub. L. 110–69, Aug. 9, 2007, 121 Stat. 600, known as the Protecting America's Competitive Edge Through Energy Act and also as the PACE–Energy Act, which is classified principally to this subchapter. For complete classification of this title to the Code, see Short Title of 2007 Amendment note set out under section 15801 of this title and Tables.

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

#### Short Title

For short title of title V of Pub. L. 110–69, which enacted this subchapter, as the "Protecting America's Competitive Edge Through Energy Act" or the "PACE–Energy Act", see section 5001 of Pub. L. 110–69, set out as a note under section 15801 of this title.
§ 230.141 Definition of “commission from an underwriter or dealer not in excess of the usual and customary distributors' or sellers' commissions” in section 2(11), for certain transactions. ( a ) The term *commission* in section 2(11) of the Act shall include such remuneration, commonly known as a spread, as may be received by a distributor or dealer as a consequence of reselling securities bought from an underwriter or dealer at a price below the offering price of such securities, where such resales afford the distributor or dealer a margin of profit not in excess of what is usual and customary in such transactions.
( b ) The term *commission from an underwriter or dealer* in section 2(11) of the Act shall include commissions paid by an underwriter or dealer directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by, or under direct or indirect common control with the issuer.
( c ) The term *usual and customary distributors' or sellers' commission* in section 2(11) of the Act shall mean a commission or remuneration, commonly known as a spread, paid to or received by any person selling securities either for his own account or for the account of others, which is not in excess of the amount usual and customary in the distribution and sale of issues of similar type and size; and not in excess of the amount allowed to other persons, if any, for comparable service in the distribution of the particular issue; but such term shall not include amounts paid to any person whose function is the management of the distribution of all or a substantial part of the particular issue, or who performs the functions normally performed by an underwriter or underwriting syndicate.
[2 FR 1075, May 26, 1937]
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3520 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3520

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to ensure that the retired pay 
  benefits promised a person when they join the Armed Forces are not 
                                reduced.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 29, 2011

 Mr. Young of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to ensure that the retired pay 
  benefits promised a person when they join the Armed Forces are not 
                                reduced.

    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 ``Keeping Our Promises Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF RETIRED PAY BENEFITS FOR CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE 
              ARMED FORCES.

    Section 1411 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(c) No Reduction in Retired Pay Benefits for Current Members.--
Notwithstanding the effective date or specified applicability of any 
change regarding the entitlement of members or former members of the 
armed forces to retired or retainer pay under this title or to the 
computation of such retired or retainer pay under the formulas of the 
table in section 1401(a) of this title or of any other provision of 
law, the change shall not apply to a member or former member who first 
became a member of the armed forces before the effective date of the 
change unless--
            ``(1) the member or former member affirmatively accepts the 
        change; or
            ``(2) the change would have the effect of expanding the 
        entitlement or eligibility of the member or former member to 
        retired or retainer pay or increasing the amount of such 
        retired or retainer pay.''.
                                 <all>
```
-fAA-2010-lloq

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

Transport Canada Helen Tsai 6/28/10 No Objections

613-952-4362

Bombardier Alex 51-Arnaud 6128/10 No Objections

Aerospace 514-855-500 I

X28482

Regional Airline Dave Loiterer 6/28/10 No Objections

Association 202-367-1252

lottercr@raa.org
#### Englander Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Respondent, v. Sol Tishler, Individually and as President of Bedding, Curtain & Drapery Workers Union, Local 140, C. I. O., et al., Appellants.

Motion referred to the court that rendered the decision. Present — Wenzel, Acting P. J., MacCrate, Schmidt, Beldock and Ughetta, JJ. Motion for reargument granted and appeal set down for argument on Friday, March 18, 1955. Present — Wenzel, Acting P. J., MacCrate, Beldock and Murphy, JJ. [See 284 App. Div. 1062.]
### §13340. Low-rank coal research and development

The Secretary shall pursue a program of research and development with respect to the technologies needed to expand the use of low-rank coals which take into account the unique properties of lignites and sub-bituminous coals, including, but not limited to, the following areas—

(1) high value-added carbon products;

(2) fuel cell applications;

(3) emissions control and combustion efficiencies;

(4) coal water fuels and underground coal gasification;

(5) distillates; and

(6) any other technologies which will assist in the development of niche markets for lignites and sub-bituminous coals.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title XIII, §1310, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2975.)
MARKWtilTE Attorney General 

# The Attorney General of 

# Texas

March 26, 1980

Honorable George Kirkpatrick, Jr. District Attorney Hardin County Courthouse Kountze, Texas 77625 Opinion No.MN-155 Re: Validity of city’s use of county landfiil garbage dump when the county hascontracted with city councilmen tooperate the dump. Dear Mr.KirQatrick: You have requested our opinion concerning the use by the City of Kountze, Texas, of a county landfill garbage dump when the county has contracted with two Kountze city councilmen to operate the dump. The contract between the county and the city councilmen provides that, in addition to certain payments from the county, the councilmen are authorized to charge certain fees from users of the dump. Under this contract the fees are paid to and retained by the councilmen Since the effective date of this contract the City of Kountze has utilized this dump andincurred stistantial user fees which have not been paid Article 988, V.T.C.S., provides, in part: “No member of the city council . ..shall bedirectly orindirectly interested inany work, businem or contract, the expense, price or consideration of which ispaid from the city treasury.
...I’ Whether ‘amunicipal official has an unlawful interest in a municipal contract is ordinarily a question of fact. Meyers v. Walker, 276 S.W. 305 (Tex. Civ. App.- Eastland 1325,no writ). Texas Anchor Fence Co. v. City of San Antonio, 71S.W. 391(Tex. Civ. App. 1902,no wrtt). However, since the user fees from the city would be paid directly to the councilmen, this obligation is clearly prohibited by article 998, V.T.C.S., and is void as against public policy. City of Edinburg v. Ellis, 59S.W.2d99(Tex. Comm’n App. 1933,holding approved); Attorney General Opinion MW-34 (1979). The authority of the city to contract for landfill usage may also be subject to competitive bidding. See article 2368a, V.T.C.S.; Attorney General Opinion MW-91 (1979). While-e city may not pay user fees which directly or indirectly accrue to the benefit of the city councilmen, it may contract for landfill services with the county. Article 4413(32c),V.T.C.S.

P- 499, Honorable George Kirkpatrick, Jr. - Page Two (MW-155)

SUMMARY A city cannot pay user fees to city councilmen who operate a county landfill dumpunder contract with the county.

MARK WHITE Attorney General ofTexas JOHN W.FAINTER, JR. First Assistant Attorney General TED L.HARTLEY Executive Assistant Attorney General Prepared byJim Allison Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE C. Robert Heath, Chairman David B.Brooks Walter Davis BobGammage Susan Garrison Rick Gilpin Bruce Youngblood

P- 500