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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice of availability.

# SUMMARY:

                        In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 announcement is made of the availability for licensing of the U.S. Patent Applications and U.S. Patent for non-exclusive, exclusive, or partially exclusive licensing listed under                         **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                        . The invention listed has been assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Army, Washington, DC.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mr. John Biffoni, Intellectual Property attorney, U.S. Army Research, Development, and Engineering Command, Attn: AMSRD-CC (Bldg. E4435), Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5424, phone: (410) 436-1158: fax: 410-436-2534 or e-mail:                         *U.John.Biffoni@us.army.mil*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    1.                     *Title:*                     “Collapsing and Telescoping Baffles for Stirred Vessels.”                

*Description:*                     The present invention relates to the field of baffles for use in stirred vessels, such as reaction calorimeters. Specifically, the invention is a set of removable baffles, forming a system which need not be manufactured with the vessel itself. Due to its construction, the baffle system of this invention is removable and replaceable.                 

*Patent Number:*                     6,769,800.                 

*Issue Date:*                     August 3, 2004.                 

Brenda S. Bowen, 

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 04-26804 Filed 12-6-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington, D.C. 20549


FORM 8-K





CURRENT REPORT


Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934





Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported) December 26, 2012





CNA FINANCIAL CORPORATION(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)





Delaware1-582336-6169860(State or other jurisdiction(Commission(IRS Employerof incorporation)File Number)Identification No.)











333 S. Wabash, Chicago, Illinois60604(Address of principal executive offices)(Zip Code)





Registrant's telephone number, including area code (312) 822-5000





NOT APPLICABLE(Former name or former address, if changed since last report.)


Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions ( see General Instruction A.2. below):


[ ] Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)


[ ] Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)


[ ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))


[ ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))








1


---




ITEM 5.02 DEPARTURE OF DIRECTORS OR CERTAIN OFFICERS; ELECTION OF DIRECTORS; APPOINTMENT OF CERTAIN OFFICERS; COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENTS OF CERTAIN OFFICERS


(e) As previously reported, on December 21, 2012, Registrant announced that Peter W. Wilson had retired as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Specialty Lines of Registrant, effective December 31, 2012.  In connection with Mr. Wilson's departure, Registrant entered into a General Release and Settlement Agreement with Mr. Wilson on December 26, 2012 (the "Settlement Agreement").  Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Mr. Wilson will receive, in addition to severance amounts due under previously entered agreements, a settlement payment of approximately $2.0 million to $2.6 million, inclusive of payments made in connection with Registrant's long-term incentive plan, such payment amount dependent on actual future results of Registrant in 2013 and 2014.


The foregoing description is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Settlement Agreement, which is filed hereto as Exhibit 10.1 and is incorporated herein by reference.





ITEM 9.01 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS


(d) Exhibits:


See Exhibit Index.








2


---




SIGNATURES





Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.





CNA Financial Corporation(Registrant)Date:  December 27, 2012By/s/ D. Craig Mense(Signature)D. Craig MenseExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer





3


---




EXHIBIT INDEX


Exhibit No.Description10.1General Release and Settlement Agreement, dated as of December 26, 2012, between Registrant and Peter W. Wilson








4
Editorial Note on Part 260
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 260 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

§ 260.10b-6 Notices—Exemptive Application Procedure. ( a ) A proposed notice of the proceeding indicated by the filing of the application shall accompany each application for a stay of a trustee's duty to resign under section 310(b) as an exhibit thereto and if necessary shall be modified to reflect any amendments to such application.
( b ) Notice of the initiation of the proceeding will be published in the Federal Register and will indicate the earliest date upon which an order disposing of the matter may be entered. The notice will also provide that any interested person may, within the period specified therein, submit to the Commission in writing any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, and may request that a hearing be held stating the person's reasons therefore and the nature of his or her interest in the matter.
( c ) An order disposing of the matter will be issued following the expiration of the period of time referred to in paragraph (b) of this section, unless the Commission thereafter orders a hearing on the matter.
( d ) The Commission will order a hearing on the matter, if it appears that a hearing is necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors: ( 1 ) Upon the request of any interested person, or
( 2 ) Upon its own motion.
[56 FR 22321, May 15, 1991]
§ 300.105 Joint accounts. ( a ) A joint account shall be deemed to be a “qualifying joint account” if it is owned jointly, whether by the owners thereof as joint tenants with the right of survivorship, as tenants by the entirety or as tenants in common, or by husband and wife as community property, but only if each co-owner possesses authority to act with respect to the entire account.
( b ) Subject to paragraph (c) of this rule, each qualifying joint account with a member shall be deemed held by one separate customer of the member.
( c ) All qualifying joint accounts with a member owned by the same persons shall be deemed held by the same customer so that the maximum protection afforded to such accounts in the aggregate shall be the protection afforded to one separate customer of the member
( d ) A joint account with a member which does not meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this rule shall be deemed to be an individual or qualifying joint account of the co-owner or co-owners having the exclusive power to act with respect to it.
#### Janet Fuller et al., Respondents, v Westchester County Health Care Corp. et al., Defendants, and Nabil Khoury, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 241]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, the defendant Nabil Khoury appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Jamieson, J.), entered January 5, 2004, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Presiding Justice Prudenti has been substituted for former Justice Sondra Miller, and Justice Adams has been substituted for former Justice Cozier *(see*22 NYCRR 670.1 [c]).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is undisputed that a note of issue was filed in this case on June 9, 2003 and that, on August 6, 2003, the defendant Westchester County Medical Center made a timely motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The parties later stipulated that the return date of that motion would be adjourned to October 22, 2003, that the plaintiffs would serve their opposition papers on October 15, 2003, and that “[a]ny *Cross*Motion [would] be served by mail on October 14, 2003, As required by the CPLR” (emphasis added). The defendant Nabil Khoury (hereinafter the appellant) subsequently submitted, within the time frame set forth for cross motions in the parties’ stipulation but more than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue, a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. The Supreme Court denied the appellant’s motion as untimely. We affirm.

Although the parties’ stipulation permitted the service of “any cross motion” by October 14, 2003, the appellant’s motion, which did not seek relief against any moving party, was *897not a cross motion *(see*CPLR 2215; *Gaines v Shell-Mar Foods, Inc.,*21 AD3d 986 [2005]; *Mango v Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Ctr.,*123 AD2d 843 [1986]). Thus, the appellant’s time within which to file his motion for summary judgment was not affected by the stipulation. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that the appellant’s motion was untimely, and that denial of the motion was required in the absence of any showing of “good cause” (CPLR 3212 [a]; *see Brill v City of New York,*2 NY3d 648 [2004]; *Gaines v Shell-Mar Foods, Inc.,*21 AD3d 986 [2005]).

In light of our determination, we need not address the question, inherent in the appellant’s argument, as to whether the filing deadline for a motion for summary judgment *(see*CPLR 3212 [a]) may be extended by stipulation of the parties. Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.
#### § 302.101 Appointment of receiver and trustee for covered broker or dealer.

Upon the appointment of the Corporation as receiver for a covered broker or dealer, the Corporation shall appoint SIPC to act as trustee for the covered broker or dealer.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>                   THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
                           EXTRACT ED FROM ANR PIPELINE COMPANY FORM 10-K
                           ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998
                           AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
                           SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>               1,000,000
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              3
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     202
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                        28
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  258
<PP&E>                                          3,447
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,165
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  1,688
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             201
<BONDS>                                           498
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                        704
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    1,688
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  747
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     399
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 47
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   302
<INCOME-TAX>                                       98
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               204
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      204
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
        

</TABLE>
#### James M. Alfes et al., Respondents, v Jason R. Attebery, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[821 NYS2d 526]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frank A. Sedita, Jr., J.), entered January 18, 2006 in a personal injury action. The judgment, entered upon a jury verdict, among other things awarded plaintiffs the sum of $267,503.45 against defendant Jason R. Attebery.

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for the parties on July 18, 2006,

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation. Present — Hurlbutt, J.P., Gorski, Martoche and Pine, JJ.
### §2293. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 85–846, §4, Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 1084; Pub. L. 87–206, §18, Sept. 6, 1961, 75 Stat. 479, related to guarantee contracts between the Atomic Energy Commission and operators of reactors under the cooperation program which were to extend no later than Dec. 31, 1975.
§ 1104.8 Terms and conditions of permits. ( a ) In all permits issued, the Commissioner shall specify: ( 1 ) The nature and extent of work allowed and required under the permit, including the time, duration, scope, location, and purpose of the work;
( 2 ) The name of the individual(s) responsible for conducting the work and, if different, the name of the individual(s) responsible for carrying out the terms and conditions of the permit;
( 3 ) The name of any university, museum, or other scientific or educational institutions in which any collected materials and data shall be deposited; and
( 4 ) Reporting requirements.
( b ) The Commissioner may specify such terms and conditions as deemed necessary, consistent with this part, to protect public safety and other values and/or resources, to secure work areas, to safeguard other legitimate land uses, and to limit activities incidental to work authorized under a permit.
( c ) Initiation of work or other activities under the authority of a permit signifies the permittee's acceptance of the terms and conditions of the permit.
( d ) The permittee shall not be released from requirements of a permit until all outstanding obligations have been satisifed, whether or not the term of the permit has expired.
( e ) The permittee may request that the Commissioner extend or modify a permit.
( f ) The permittee's performance under any permit issued for a period greater than 1 year shall be subject to review by the Commissioner, at least annually.
#### BIRD *vs.*THE STATE.

jlKBlCTMEST ÍOH GAMING.]

1. *Conviction on testimony of accomplice.*—A. conviction cannot be had on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, (Code, (¡3G00,) although such accomplice was also examined as a witness before the grand jury.

XuoM the Circuit Court of Choctaw.

Tried before the Hon. C. W. Eapiee,.

The bill of exceptions in this case was as follows :

“ On the trial of this case, one Callahan, a witness for *280State, testified that he was a jury, and then stated the facts on which the indictment was found; that within twelve months before the finding the indictment, and during the present term of the circuit court, the defendant, with some eight other persons, played with cards at a game called *poker ;*that said playing was done in the county jail, in a room in the second story, usually called ‘the debtors’ room that one II. Smith was the jailor, and lived, with his family, in the second story of said jail, and occupied the west end the building, and had control of the building; that the playing was by consent of said Smith; that there was no prisoner in said debtors’ room ; that he (witness) played in ’said game with the defendant and the others; that he was boarding With said Smith, and had paid him board, without any demand being made for the same said Smith, although Smith did not usually charge him board. There was other evidence, showing that said house was the county jail, and was situated in the town of Butler; and that there was one prisoner in the jail.. It was in evidence, also, that when the grand jury went to examine the said jail, there was no prisoner the debtors’ room, but that there was some bed-clothing deposited therein, which the witness supposed to belong the jailor. This was all the evidence in the cause; aüd thereupon the court charged the jury, that if they beleved the evidence, they must find the defendant guilty. The defendant excepted to this,charge, and then requested the court to instruct the jury, that a conviction could not be had on the testimony of an accomplice, unless he was corroborated by such other evidence as tended connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, or the circumstances thereof. The court refused this charge as asked, but gave the charge to the jury in the event they should believe that said Callahan was not examined before the grand jury as a witness in the case; and to this refusal the defendant excepted.”

G-. F. Smith, for the prisoner.

M. A. Baldwin, Attorney-General, *contra.*

*281STONE, J.

The only witness who testified in this case, was, under the decision in the case of Davidson v. The State, (33 Ala. 350,) an accomplice of the defendant, in the game for which he was on trial. The circuit court ruled, that a conviction could be had on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, if that witness had been examined on the preliminary inquisition before the grand jury. In this the circuit court erred. — Code, §§3246-7-8.

Reversed and remanded.
§ 270.0-10 Small entities under the Investment Company Act for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. ( a ) *General.* For purposes of Commission rulemaking in accordance with the provisions of Chapter Six of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.*) and unless otherwise defined for purposes of a particular rulemaking, the term *small business* or *small organization* for purposes of the Investment Company Act of 1940 shall mean an investment company that, together with other investment companies in the same group of related investment companies, has net assets of $50 million or less as of the end of its most recent fiscal year. For purposes of this section: ( 1 ) In the case of a management company, the term *group of related investment companies* shall mean two or more management companies (including series thereof) that: ( i ) Hold themselves out to investors as related companies for purposes of investment and investor services; and
( ii ) Either: ( A ) Have a common investment adviser or have investment advisers that are affiliated persons of each other; or
( B ) Have a common administrator; and
( 2 ) In the case of a unit investment trust, the term *group of related investment companies* shall mean two or more unit investment trusts (including series thereof) that have a common sponsor.
( b ) *Special rule for insurance company separate accounts.* In determining whether an insurance company separate account is a *small business* or *small entity* pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the assets of the separate account shall be cumulated with the assets of the general account and all other separate accounts of the insurance company.
( c ) *Determination of net assets.* The Commission may calculate its determination of the net assets of a group of related investment companies based on the net assets of each investment company in the group as of the end of such company's fiscal year.
[63 FR 35514, June 30, 1998]
## In t he Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 23

- 00078

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF JENNIFER NICOLE HINES AND SAMANTHA LUE HAWTHORN

- NORTON AND IN THE INTEREST OF C.C.H. AND D.M.

- H., MINOR CHILDREN

On Appeal from t he County Court at Law Lamar County, Texas Trial Court No. 91997

Before Stevens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

S amantha Lue Hawthorn

- Norton , appellant, filed a notice of appeal in this matter o n October 9 , 20 23

. Appellant ha s not filed a docket ing statement in accordance with Rule 32.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 32.1. Further, appellant ha s not tendered the mandatory $20 5.00 filing fee associated with the a ppeal , see T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 5, and
ha s not filed proof of indigency in lieu of a filing fee , s ee T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 20.1. “A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay

— at the time an item is presented for filing

— whatev er f ees are required by statute or Supreme Court order. The appellate court may enforce this rule by any order that is just.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5

. By letter dated November 3 , 2023 , appellant was provided with notice of and an opportunity to cure these de fect s. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(b) , (c)

. The clerk’s letter further
warned appellant that, if s he did not submit an adequate response to the notice by November 13 , 2023 , t his appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution and for failure to com ply
with the above

- cited r ules

. A ppellant did not file a docketing statement, did not pa y the mandatory filing fee, and did not file proof of indigency in lieu of a filing fee. Further, w e received no communication from appellant responsive to the No vemb er 3 correspondence

. Accordingly, this appeal is ripe for dismissal.3

Pursuant to Rule 42.3 , subsections (b) and (c) , of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.

Charles van Cleef Justice
Dat e Submitted: November 29, 2023 Date Decided: November 30, 2023