alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1304.3 Proactive disclosure of MCC records.

Records that are required by the FOIA to be made available for public inspection in an electronic format may be accessed through the MCC website. MCC is responsible for determining which of its records are required to be made publicly available, identifying additional records in the interest of the public that are appropriate for public disclosure, and posting such records. MCC shall ensure that its website of posted records is reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis. The FOIA Program Officer may assist individuals in locating records on the MCC website and FOIA reading room.
Type Description Amount 

# DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION LEGAL ADVERTISING P.O. Box 54026 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90054-0026 PHONE: (213) 229-5300 FAX (213) 229-5481 FEDERAL TAX ID:95-4133299 Date Customer Account Number Customer Payment Reference Special Project

Order No 

### Page 1 of 1 Invoice Number 

### CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER SERVICE BUREAU Ordered by: For payment processing, please forward to: DUE UPON RECEIPT 

### INVOICE A2271340 3/7/2012 1124120195 21865 COPLEY DRIVE EO -1ST FLR) DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 USA 21865 COPLEY DRIVE EO - 1ST FLOOR) DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 USA DENISE PUPO SCAQMD/CLERK OF THE BOARD CANDY BOYAJIAN SCAQMD/CLERK OF THE BOARD

119.00 03/07/2012 51230 ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER LEGAL SECTION SET 1 COL WIDE HRG NOTICE OF HEARING PUBLIC HEARING RULE 461 InvoiceA2271340 119.00 $ 14.00* 8.50 Inches * 1 Inserts

Please detach and return this portion with payment. To Invoice Date ensure proper credit to your account, please write your customer number on your check. If you have any questions about your account, please call Government Advertising - Division 1124 Invoice NumberCustomer Number Please Pay DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION ATTN: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE PO BOX 54026 LOS ANGELES, CA 90054-0026 119.00 Payment: 0.00 Total: Please Pay: 

### PLEASE PROCESS FOR PAYMENT IMMEDIATELY. DUE UPON RECEIPT. 2132295411. CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER SERVICE BUREAU 119.00 119.00 

### 1124120195 A2271340 3/7/2012 DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 USA 21865 COPLEY DRIVE EO - 1ST FLOOR) SCAQMD/CLERK OF THE BOARD CANDY BOYAJIAN Please make check payable to: Daily Journal Corporation 

## !A000002570042!
§ 1006.735 Under what conditions do I get an additional opportunity to challenge the facts on which the suspension is based? ( a ) You as a respondent will not have an additional opportunity to challenge the facts if the suspending official determines that— ( 1 ) Your suspension is based upon an indictment, conviction, civil judgment, or other finding by a Federal, State, or local body for which an opportunity to contest the facts was provided;
( 2 ) Your presentation in opposition contains only general denials to information contained in the Notice of Suspension;
( 3 ) The issues raised in your presentation in opposition to the suspension are not factual in nature, or are not material to the suspending official's initial decision to suspend, or the official's decision whether to continue the suspension; or
( 4 ) On the basis of advice from the Department of Justice, an office of the United States Attorney, a State attorney general's office, or a State or local prosecutor's office, that substantial interests of the government in pending or contemplated legal proceedings based on the same facts as the suspension would be prejudiced by conducting fact-finding.
( b ) You will have an opportunity to challenge the facts if the suspending official determines that— ( 1 ) The conditions in paragraph (a) of this section do not exist; and
( 2 ) Your presentation in opposition raises a genuine dispute over facts material to the suspension.
( c ) If you have an opportunity to challenge disputed material facts under this section, the suspending official or designee must conduct additional proceedings to resolve those facts.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4073 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 2, 2012 

Received 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to accept the quitclaim, disclaimer, and relinquishment of a railroad right 

of way within and adjacent to Pike National Forest 

in El Paso County, Colorado, originally granted to the 

Mt. Manitou Park and Incline Railway Company pursuant to the Act of March 3, 1875. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
2 

HR 4073 RDS

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ACCEPTANCE OF RELINQUISHMENT OF RAIL4 ROAD RIGHT OF WAY BY MANITOU AND 

5 PIKES PEAK RAILWAY COMPANY, COLORADO, 

6 OVER NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND. 

7 (a) AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT.—Notwithstanding the 

8 Act of March 8, 1922 (43 U.S.C. 912), the Secretary of 

9 Agriculture may accept the quitclaim, disclaimer, and re10 linquishment by the Manitou and Pikes Peak Railway 

11 Company, successor in interest to the Mt. Manitou Park 

12 and Incline Railway Company, of a right of way, more 

13 fully described in subsection (b), within and adjacent to 

14 Pike National Forest that was originally granted by the 

15 Secretary to the Mt. Manitou Park and Incline Railway 

16 Company pursuant to the authority provided by the Act 

17 of March 3, 1875 (Chapter 152; 18 Stat. 482) for the 

18 construction of a railroad and station in El Paso County, 

19 Colorado. 

20 (b) RIGHT OF WAY DESCRIBED.—The railroad right 

of way referred to in subsection (a) is located in the S1 21 ⁄2

22 of section 6, Township 14 South, Range 67 West, and 

N1⁄2SE 1 23 ⁄4 of section 1, Township 14 South, Range 68 

24 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, and is depicted 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
3 

HR 4073 RDS

1 in a tracing filed in the United States Land Office at 

2 Pueblo, Colorado, file 019416, on December 24, 1914. 

3 (c) LIMITED APPLICABILITY.—Nothing in this sec4 tion shall be construed to affect the right, title, and inter5 est of the Manitou and Pikes Peak Railway Company in 

6 land held in fee title by the Manitou and Pikes Peak Rail7 way Company. 

Passed the House of Representatives August 1, 

2012. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with
#### Anat Fintzi, an Infant, by Her Father and Natural Guardian, Ariel Fintzi, et al., Appellants, v Riverdale Riding Corporation, Doing Business as Riverdale Equestrian Centre, et al., Respondents.

[819 NYS2d 919]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered March 21, 2005, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered June 10, 2005, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to reargue, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

The IAS court properly dismissed all of plaintiffs’ causes of *702action, including separate causes of action for common-law negligence and negligent supervision, since the record does not raise an issue of fact regarding the horse’s dangerous or unpredictable proclivities. Both deponents familiar with the horse described him as “very steady and passive,” “sedentary” and “very sweet and quiet” *(see Collier v Zambito,*1 NY3d 444 [2004]; *see also Bard v Jahnke,*6 NY3d 592, 596-597 [2006]; *Wardrop v Koerner,*208 AD2d 1147 [1994]), and there is no credible indication that this rider had been unable to control the horse prior to the subject incident.

Even without evidence of unpredictable propensities, plaintiffs were able to pursue the case on a theory of negligence *(see Schwartz v Armand Erpf Estate,*255 AD2d 35, 37 [1999], *lv dismissed*94 NY2d 796 [1999]; *see also*Restatement [Second] of Torts § 518). However, plaintiffs failed to identify a distinct act that defendants should have done or refrained from doing under the circumstances to protect the infant plaintiff, or some distinct, enhanced duty that was violated *(see Schwartz,*255 AD2d at 38). Further, all of the alleged flaws cited regarding defendant Mannone’s instruction were relevant only if the intention was for the infant plaintiff to learn to manage a faster, more unruly horse, and in any event, only if they were the “substantial” or “proximate cause” of Anat’s injury *(see Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp.,*51 NY2d 308, 315 [1980]; *Tanon v Eppler,*5 AD3d 667, 668 [2004]). Here, while defendant instructor Mannone was attentive and within a reasonable distance of the student rider *(cf. Lipari v Babylon Riding Ctr., Inc.,*18 AD3d 824 [2005]), the accident nonetheless occurred “in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it” *(Convey v City of Rye School Dist.,*271 AD2d 154, 160 [2000]).

The court properly characterized the renewal/reargument motion as one simply to reargue since, as plaintiffs concede, the new cases they adduced merely reiterated existing case law (CPLR 2221 [e]; *Amankwa v New York City Hous. Auth.,*224 AD2d 262 [1996]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.
#### §§ 1005.104-1005.109 [Reserved]
Order entered October 3 , 2022

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 22
- 00698
- CV
IN THE INTERST K.W., A CHILD On Appeal from the 468th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 468
- 55854
- 2017

ORDER Before the Court is appellant ’s September 29, 2022 motion to extend the time
to file the jurisdictional brief requested by this Court. We GRANT the motion and
extend the deadline to October 12 , 2022

.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
### §§1858, 1858a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1858, act July 14, 1955, ch. 360, title IV, §402, as added Dec. 31, 1970, Pub. L. 91–604, §14, 84 Stat. 1709, which established Office of Noise Abatement and Control and authorized investigation of noise and its effects on public health and welfare and a report to Congress on results of this investigation, was transferred to section 7641 of this title.

Section 1858a, act July 14, 1955, ch. 360, title IV, §403, as added Dec. 31, 1970, Pub. L. 91–604, §14, 84 Stat. 1710, which authorized appropriations concerning noise pollution, was transferred to section 7642 of this title.
### §290aa–2a. Report on individuals with co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders

#### (a) In general

Not later than 2 years after October 17, 2000, the Secretary shall, after consultation with organizations representing States, mental health and substance abuse treatment providers, prevention specialists, individuals receiving treatment services, and family members of such individuals, prepare and submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives, a report on prevention and treatment services for individuals who have co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders.

#### (b) Report content

The report under subsection (a) shall be based on data collected from existing Federal and State surveys regarding the treatment of co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders and shall include—

(1) a summary of the manner in which individuals with co-occurring disorders are receiving treatment, including the most up-to-date information available regarding the number of children and adults with co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders and the manner in which funds provided under sections 300x and 300x–21 of this title are being utilized, including the number of such children and adults served with such funds;

(2) a summary of improvements necessary to ensure that individuals with co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders receive the services they need;

(3) a summary of practices for preventing substance abuse among individuals who have a mental illness and are at risk of having or acquiring a substance abuse disorder; and

(4) a summary of evidenced-based practices for treating individuals with co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders and recommendations for implementing such practices.

#### (c) Funds for report

The Secretary may obligate funds to carry out this section with such appropriations as are available.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, §503A, as added Pub. L. 106–310, div. B, title XXXIV, §3406, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1221.)

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

#### Change of Name

Committee on Commerce of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Energy and Commerce of House of Representatives, and jurisdiction over matters relating to securities and exchanges and insurance generally transferred to Committee on Financial Services of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Seventh Congress, Jan. 3, 2001.
Exhibit 10.2



                            INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
                            -------------------------

     THIS  AGREEMENT  is  made  this  13  day  of January, 2006, between TELESIS
                                     ----
TECHNOLOGY  CORPORATION,  a  Florida  corporation,  doing  business  as  TELESIS
COMMERCIAL  PRODUCTS DIVISION, Owner of the business assets located at 1611 12th
St.  E.,  Unit B., Palmetto, FL 34221, Seller, and GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS,
LLC,  a  Florida  limited  liability  company,  Buyer.

     In consideration of the purchase of the business assets of Seller by Buyer,
the  Seller  agrees  to hold Buyer harmless, and to indemnify Buyer, against any
and  all  claims,  liens,  debts,  taxes, fines, penalties, causes of action and
judgments  arising or existing in connection with the business known as "TELESIS
COMMERCIAL  PRODUCTS  DIVISION",  from the inception of the business through the
date  of  the  closing.  Included  in  this indemnification shall be the cost of
reasonable  attorneys  fees  and court costs should they be incurred by Buyer in
their  defense  against  any such claims, liens, debts, taxes, fines, penalties,
causes  of  action  or  judgments.

     In consideration of the sale of the business assets of Seller to Buyer, the
Buyer  agrees  to hold Seller harmless, and to indemnify Seller, against any and
all  claims,  liens,  debts,  taxes,  fines,  penalties,  causes  of  action and
judgments  arising or existing in connection with the business known as "TELESIS
COMMERCIAL  PRODUCTS  DIVISION", subsequent to the date of the closing. Included
in this indemnification shall be the cost of reasonable attorneys fees and court
costs  should  they  be  incurred  by  Seller  in their defense against any such
claims,  liens,  debts,  taxes, fines, penalties, causes of action or judgments.


                                             TELESIS TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

/s/ Stephan Voigt                             /s/ Hasit N. Vibhakar
---------------------------                  -------------------------------
Witness                                      By: HASIT N. VIBHAKAR
                                             ITS PRESIDENT

/s/ Terry Williams
---------------------------
Witness

                                             GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS, LLC

/s/ Stephan Voigt                            /s/ David R. Kraft
---------------------------                  ----------------------------------
Witness                                      By: DAVID R. KRAFT
                                             ITS MANAGING MEMBER


/s/ Terry Williams
---------------------------
Witness

<PAGE>
#### § 1006.990 Preponderance of the evidence.

*Preponderance of the evidence* means proof by information that, compared with information opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not.
§ 1306.10 Scope. ( a ) This subpart sets forth MCC's procedures for the collection of a Federal employee's current pay by salary offset to satisfy certain debts owed to the United States.
( b ) This subpart applies to: ( 1 ) Current employees of MCC and other agencies who owe debts to MCC;
( 2 ) Current employees of MCC who owe debts to other agencies.
( c ) This subpart does not apply to: ( 1 ) Debts or claims arising under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.S.C. 1 *et seq.*); the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301 *et seq.*); the tariff laws of the United States.
( 2 ) Any case where collection of a debt by salary offset is explicitly provided for or prohibited by another statute (e.g., travel advances in 5 U.S.C. 5705 and employee training expenses in 5 U.S.C. 4108); or
( 3 ) Any other debts excluded by the Federal Claims Collections Standards (31 CFR parts 900-904) or 31 CFR part 285.
( d ) This part does not preclude an employee from requesting waiver of the debt, if waiver is available under subpart C of this part or by other regulation or statute.
( e ) Nothing in this part precludes the compromise, suspension or termination of collection actions where appropriate under § 1306.18 or other regulations or statutes.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1820

BAZOMBIE PROSPER BAZIE, Petitioner,
versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A97-187-336) Submitted: February 17, 2006 Decided: March 1, 2006 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Gretchen M. Wolfinger, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Bazie does not challenge the Board’s finding that he was statutorily barred from asylum. He has therefore waived appellate review of his asylum claim. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro , 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Bazombie Prosper Bazie, a native and citizen of Burkina Faso, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, * withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In his petition for review, Bazie contends that the Board and immigration judge erred in denying his request for withholding of removal. “To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that he faces a clear probability of persecution because of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Rusu v. INS , 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic , 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)). Based on our review of the record, we find that Bazie failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration court. We therefore uphold the denial of his request for withholding of removal. Bazie also challenges the denial of his claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture. Because he failed to raise this claim before the Board, we find that we have no jurisdiction to consider this claim. See8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)- 3 - (2000) (“A court may review a final order of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.”); Asika v. Ashcroft , 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied , 125 S. Ct. 861 (2005) (holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider an argument that was not raised before the Board). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
# Journal officiel L 198/2018

| | ISSN 1977-0693 |
| --- | --- |
| Journal officiel
  de l'Union européenne | L 198 |
| | |
| Édition de langue française | Législation | 61e année6 août 2018 |

ISSN 1977-0693

Journal officiel

de l'Union européenne

L 198

Édition de langue française

Législation

61e année6 août 2018

---

| Sommaire | | II   Actes non législatifs | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | ACCORDS INTERNATIONAUX |
| | * | Avis concernant l'entrée en vigueur du protocole entre la Communauté européenne et ses États membres et la République libanaise instituant un mécanisme de règlement des différends relatifs aux dispositions commerciales de l'accord euro-méditerranéen instituant une association entre la Communauté européenne et ses États membres, d'une part, et la République libanaise, d'autre part | 1 |

Sommaire

II   Actes non législatifs

page

ACCORDS INTERNATIONAUX

*

Avis concernant l'entrée en vigueur du protocole entre la Communauté européenne et ses États membres et la République libanaise instituant un mécanisme de règlement des différends relatifs aux dispositions commerciales de l'accord euro-méditerranéen instituant une association entre la Communauté européenne et ses États membres, d'une part, et la République libanaise, d'autre part

1

| FR | Les actes dont les titres sont imprimés en caractères maigres sont des actes de gestion courante pris dans le cadre de la politique agricole et ayant généralement une durée de validité limitée.
  Les actes dont les titres sont imprimés en caractères gras et précédés d'un astérisque sont tous les autres actes. |
| --- | --- |

FR

Les actes dont les titres sont imprimés en caractères maigres sont des actes de gestion courante pris dans le cadre de la politique agricole et ayant généralement une durée de validité limitée.

Les actes dont les titres sont imprimés en caractères gras et précédés d'un astérisque sont tous les autres actes.

---

II Actes non législatifs

ACCORDS INTERNATIONAUX

| 6.8.2018 | FR | Journal officiel de l'Union européenne | L 198/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2018

FR

Journal officiel de l'Union européenne

L 198/1

---

Avis concernant l'entrée en vigueur du protocole entre la Communauté européenne et ses États membres et la République libanaise instituant un mécanisme de règlement des différends relatifs aux dispositions commerciales de l'accord euro-méditerranéen instituant une association entre la Communauté européenne et ses États membres, d'une part, et la République libanaise, d'autre part

Le protocole entre la Communauté européenne et ses États membres et la République libanaise instituant un mécanisme de règlement des différends relatifs aux dispositions commerciales de l'accord euro-mediterranéen instituant une association entre la Communauté européenne et ses États membres, d'une part, et la République libanaise, d'autre part, signé à Bruxelles le 11 novembre 2010, entre en vigueur le 1er septembre 2018, conformément à son article 23.

er

---