alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §17333. United States trade missions to encourage private sector trade and investment

#### (a) Assistance authorized

The Secretary of Commerce shall direct the International Trade Administration to expand or create trade missions to and from the United States to encourage private sector trade and investment in clean and efficient energy technologies—

(1) by organizing and facilitating trade missions to foreign countries and by matching United States private sector companies with opportunities in foreign markets so that clean and efficient energy technologies can help to combat increases in global greenhouse gas emissions; and

(2) by creating reverse trade missions in which the Department of Commerce facilitates the meeting of foreign private and public sector organizations with private sector companies in the United States for the purpose of showcasing clean and efficient energy technologies in use or in development that could be exported to other countries.

#### (b) Report

The Secretary of Commerce shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees an annual report on the implementation of this section for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

#### (c) Authorization of appropriations

To carry out this section, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

(Pub. L. 110–140, title IX, §913, Dec. 19, 2007, 121 Stat. 1726.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective on the date that is 1 day after Dec. 19, 2007, see section 1601 of Pub. L. 110–140, set out as a note under section 1824 of Title 2, The Congress.
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No. FAA - 20 13 - 0487 Directorate ID: 20 10 - SW - 056 - AD Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model AS332L2 and EC225LP Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): XX Helicopters in th e US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to detect the torque loss of the bolts that secure the main gearbox bar attaching fittings and to prevent cracks that could lead to failure of the MGB supporting structure, detachment of the MGB an d loss of helicopter control. Costs  Inspecting the torque of each bolt that secures the front and rear MGB attaching fitting would require 1 work - hour and no parts for a total cost of $85 per helicopter, and $340 for the U.S. fleet.  Readjusting the torq

ue would add another 0.25 work - hour for a total cost of about $21 per helicopter.  Replacing all four nuts and bolts of an attachment fitting would require 4 work - hours. Parts would cost $1,000 for a total cost of $1,340 per helicopter.  Replacing the attachment fitting or plate would require 16 work - hours respectivel y. Parts would cost $2,000 respectivel y for a total cost of $3,360 to replace each part per helicopter.  Replacing frames 3855 and 5295 would require 40 work - hours respectively . Parts would cost $ 5,000 to replace each frame for a total cost of $8,400 per frame per helicopter. Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  )Project Engineer: Gary Roach
132 STAT. 5114 PUBLIC LAW 115–377—DEC. 21, 2018 

Public Law 115–377 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To reauthorize the Traumatic Brain Injury program. 

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 ‘‘Traumatic Brain Injury Program 

Reauthorization Act of 2018’’. 

SEC. 2. PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF INJURIES. 

Part J of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 

280b et seq.) is amended— 

(1) in section 393C (42 U.S.C. 280b–1d) by adding at the 

end the following: 

‘‘(c) NATIONAL CONCUSSION DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS.— 

The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, may implement concussion data collection and analysis to determine the prevalence and incidence of 

concussion.’’; 

(2) in section 394A(b)(42 U.S.C. 280b–3(b)), by striking 

‘‘$6,564,000 for each of fiscal years 2015 through 2019’’ and 

inserting ‘‘$11,750,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 through 

2024’’; and 

(3) by striking section 393C–1 (42 U.S.C. 280b–1e). 

SEC. 3. STATE GRANTS FOR PROJECTS REGARDING TRAUMATIC BRAIN 

INJURY. 

Section 1252 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300d– 

52) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘, acting through the 

Administrator for the Administration for Community Living,’’ 

after ‘‘The Secretary’’; 

(2) by striking subsection (e); 

(3) by redesignating subsections (f) through (j) as subsections (e) through (i), respectively; and 

(4) in subsection (i), as so redesignated, by striking 

‘‘$5,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2015 through 2019’’ 

and inserting ‘‘$7,321,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 through 

2024’’. 

SEC. 4. STATE GRANTS FOR PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES. 

Section 1253 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300d– 

53) is amended— 

Determination. 

Traumatic Brain 

Injury Program 

Reauthorization 

Act of 2018. 

42 USC 201 note. 

Dec. 21, 2018 

[H.R. 6615] 


dkrause on DSKBC28HB2PROD with PUBLAWS
PUBLIC LAW 115–377—DEC. 21, 2018 132 STAT. 5115 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 6615 (S. 3657): 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

Dec. 11, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 18, considered and passed Senate, amended. 

Dec. 19, House concurred in Senate amendment. 

Æ 

(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘, acting through the 

Administrator for the Administration for Community Living,’’ 

after ‘‘The Secretary’’; and (2) in subsection (l), by striking ‘‘$3,100,000 for each of 

the fiscal years 2015 through 2019’’ and inserting ‘‘$4,000,000 

for each of fiscal years 2020 through 2024’’. 

Approved December 21, 2018. 


dkrause on DSKBC28HB2PROD with PUBLAWS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001020186
<NAME>                        CAPITAL BEVERAGE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,559,772
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  743,143
<ALLOWANCES>                                   60,000
<INVENTORY>                                    874,055
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,241,726
<PP&E>                                         125,071
<DEPRECIATION>                                 29,732
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,340,355
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,080,035
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    3,000
<COMMON>                                       2,379
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,750,509
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4,340,355
<SALES>                                        9,391,316
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               9,391,316
<CGS>                                          7,485,265
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7,485,265
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,249,932
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (40,381)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (328,111)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (328,111)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (328,111)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.16)



</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 249

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 249 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 249.501b Form BD-N for notice registration as a broker-dealer.

This form shall be used for notice of registration as a broker-dealer pursuant to Section 15(b)(11)(A) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o(b)(11)(A)) for the limited purpose of trading security futures products, or to amend such notice.

[66 FR 45147, Aug. 27, 2001]

###### Editorial Note

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations affecting Form BD-N, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*
Untitled Page


		

		

		Exhibit 10.2

		

		

		

			Paul Pedersen

		1881 Brunswick St

		Unit 311

		Halifax, Nova Scotia

		B3J 3L8

		

		December 15, 2005

		

		University Girls Calendar, Ltd.

		1881 Brunswick St

		Unit 311

		Halifax, Nova Scotia

		B3J 3L8

		

		

		To Whom It May Concern:

		
I hereby agree to loan up to U.S.$50,000.00 to University Girls Calendar, Ltd. (the "Company") on an as-needed basis to fund business operations and expenses of the Company, as needed by the Company until January 31, 2007.

		

		The terms of such loan will be negotiated at the time of lending, but interest charged will not exceed the prevailing prime rate of interest plus 2%.

		

		

		Sincerely,

		

		

		

		                                                                 

		Paul Pedersen
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIEDCRAFTWORKERS LOCAL UNION 3 et al,

Plaintiff(s),

    v.

JP TILE INC et al,

Defendant(s).                                                                      /

No. C 08-01074 MHP

ORDER

Pursuant to request by plaintiff, and there being no further reason at this time to maintain the

file as an open one for statistical purposes, the Clerk is instructed to submit a JS-6 Form to the

Administrative Office.

Nothing contained in this minute entry shall be considered a dismissal or disposition of this

action and, should further proceedings in this litigation become necessary or desirable, any party

may initiate it in the same manner as if this entry had not been entered.

Dated: 1/6/2010MARILYN HALL PATELUnited States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01074-MHP   Document 32   Filed 01/08/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-12T01:13:44-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         898,655
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,708
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               915,363
<PP&E>                                       1,411,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,326,763
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,539
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,274,224
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,326,763
<SALES>                                         12,587
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,048
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,817
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,231
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,231
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,321
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 03-15-00180-CV

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS

Rebecca Mae Blount

Appellant

v.

Yellow Orchid, LLC

Appellees

Appeal from the County Court at Law 1 Travis County, Texas

Trial Court No. C-1-CV-15-000923

APPELLANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

David Rogers

Texas Bar No. 24014089

Law Office of David Rogers 

1201 Spyglass Suite 100

Austin, TX 78746

Firm@DARogersLaw.com

Matthew Wilson

Texas Bar No. 24079588

Telephone: (512) 923-1836

Fax: (512) 201-4082

Fax: (512) 777-5988

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

ACCEPTED

03-15-00180-CV

4810931

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/8/2015 2:48:40 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/8/2015 2:48:40 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
No. 03-15-00180-CV

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS

Rebecca Mae Blount

Appellant

v.

Yellow Orchid, LLC

Appellees

Appeal from the County Court at Law 1 Travis County, Texas

Trial Court No. C-1-CV-15-000923

APPELLANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS

TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:

Comes now Appellant, Rebecca Mae Blount, and files her motion to dismiss 

her appeal from Travis County Court at Law No. 1. The parties have agreed 

to a confidential settlement and release agreement that disposes of all claims 

in this matter. As such, Appellant no longer wishes to pursue this appeal and 

respectfully moves this court to dismiss her appeal and remove this case 

from the court’s docket. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
_/s/ David Rogers__________

DAVID ROGERS

Texas Bar No. 24014089

LAW OFFICE OF DAVID ROGERS

1201 Spyglass

Suite #100

Austin, TX 78746

Telephone: (512) 923-1836

Facsimile: (512) 201-4082

Email: Firm@DARogersLaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that on April 5, 2015 all parties finished executing a 

settlement agreement, a condition of which is the filing of this motion. This 

motion is therefore filed as unopposed.

_/s/ David Rogers__________

DAVID ROGERS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the forgoing motion was 

served upon counsel of record for Appellee via this court’s ECF system on 

this 8th day of April, 2015.

J. Hyde

State Bar No. 24027083

THE J. HYDE Law OFFICE, PLLC

Ill E. 17th Street#l2015

Austin, Texas 78711

Phone: (512) 200-4080

Fax: (512) 582-8295

E-mail: jhyde@jhydelaw.com
_/s/ David Rogers__________

DAVID ROGERS
#### In the Matter of Steven Scott, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[819 NYS2d 618]

Spain, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Rumsey, J.), entered August 24, 2005 in Chemung County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Central Office Review Committee denying his grievance.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, sustained an injury to his left shoulder while incarcerated. Subsequently, petitioner was scheduled for a surgical procedure known as a “Mumford excision” which was intended to relieve petitioner’s persistent pain. Petitioner refused to undergo the procedure and was permitted to confer with an orthopedist who offered an alternative, but less successful and more invasive, surgical solution intended to repair the injury. Petitioner’s requests and administrative appeals to undergo the repair surgery were denied on the basis that it constituted a second opinion and was unnecessary. Petitioner thereafter commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking to compel respondents to provide him with the requested medical treatment. Supreme Court dismissed petitioner’s application, prompting this appeal.

Initially, we note that because the determination is based upon respondent Facility Health Services Director’s professional judgment as a physician, mandamus will not lie to compel him *639to act otherwise *(see Matter of Davis v Goord,*7 AD3d 889, 890 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 604 [2004]; Department of Correctional Services Health Services Policy Manual 1.21). The record establishes that petitioner has consulted with physicians regarding his treatment several times, receives daily pain medication and has been scheduled to undergo the Mumford excision. Moreover, petitioner has offered no proof that the requested surgery is medically necessary. As such, petitioner has failed to establish that respondents have neglected his basic health care needs or exhibited a “deliberate indifference” to his medical needs and we find no 8th Amendment violation *(Estelle v Gamble,*429 US 97, 104 [1976]; *see Matter of Jarvis v Pullman,*297 AD2d 842, 843 [2002]; *Matter of Smith v Alves,*282 AD2d 844, 845 [2001]; *Matter of Singh v Eagen,*236 AD2d 654, 655 [1997]). Likewise, we are satisfied that the denial of his grievance is neither affected by an error of law nor arbitrary and capricious *(see Matter of Davis v Goord, supra*at 890; *Matter of Pittman v Portuondo,*307 AD2d 485, 485-486 [2003]; *Matter of Singh v Eagen, supra*at 655).

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
#### Anne M. Fryxell, Respondent, v. Reliance Building Supply Corp., Appellant, and F. C. Russell Company, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Breitel, Bastow and Botein, JJ.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-11-00634- CV

In re Law E nf

orce m ent Alliance of Am eric a, Inc.

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
L aw Enforc ement Alliance of Americ a, Inc. (“L EAA” ) filed this orig inal proce eding seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to reve rse its discovery order dated October 1 0, 2011 requiring L EAA to respond to cer tain interrog atories and reque sts for pro d u ct i o n o f documents. Ba sed on the rec ord befor e us, we cann o t conclude that the district court abused its discretion in issuing its order . Acc ording ly , we de ny L EAA’s pe tition for writ of mandamus.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Henson Filed: De cembe r 9, 2011
§ 230.420 Legibility of prospectus. ( a ) The body of all printed prospectuses and all notes to financial statements and other tabular data included therein shall be in roman type at least as large and as legible as 10-point modern type. However, (a) to the extent necessary for convenient presentation, financial statements and other tabular data, including tabular data in notes, and (b) prospectuses deemed to be omitting prospectuses under rule 482 (17 CFR 230.482) may be in roman type at least as large and as legible as 8-point modern type. All such type shall be leaded at least 2 points.
( b ) Where a prospectus is distributed through an electronic medium, issuers may satisfy legibility requirements applicable to printed documents, such as paper size, type size and font, bold-face type, italics and red ink, by presenting all required information in a format readily communicated to investors, and where indicated, in a manner reasonably calculated to draw investor attention to specific information.
[53 FR 3878, Feb. 10, 1988, as amended at 61 FR 24655, May 15, 1996]
5310.002 Procedures

See the tailorable templates for documenting market research conducted.

Parent topic: Part 5310 - Market Research
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60407

V E R IZ O N B U S IN E S S N E T W O R KS E R V IC E S , IN C ., P la in tiff-A p p e lle e , ve r s us D IA N AD AY -C A R T E E , D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t.

A pp eal s f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f o rt he So ut he r n Di s t r i c to f M i s s i s s i ppi N o. 3: 06- C V
- 650

B ef ore G A R W O O D , S M ITH , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * T h i s di spu t e center s on w h et h e rde f e nda ntD i anaD ay - Car t e e m us ti ndem
ni f y pl ai nt i f

f V e r i z o n B us i ne s s N e t w o r k Ser vi c e s , I nc . ( “Ver i z o n” ) , f o rw i t hho l dUnited States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 26, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-60407 Document: 00511122961 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2010N o. 09- 60407

2 i n g- t ax l i abil i t y ari si n g f rom a transfer of

st ock opti on s. D ay-C art ee app eal s a s um m ar y j udg m e ntdi r e c t i ng he rt o pa y m o r e t han $2 . 5 m i l l i o n t o Ver i z o n. T h e is s u e o f ta xlia b ility is p e n d in g in th e U n ite d S ta te s T a xC o u r t. T h is c as e s houl d not pro c ee d unti l t he t ax i ss ue has bee n det er m i ned. Acc or di ngl y, w e v ac at e t he s um m ar y j udg m e nta nd r e m and t o t he di s t r i c t c o ur t(i n whi c h t he m ag i s t r at e j udg e i s s i t t i ng byc o ns e nt) . W e i ns t r uc tt he di s t r i c t c o ur t t o s t ayt he c a s e a w a itin ga d e c is io n b yth e T a xC o u r t. W e n o te th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w ill h ave j u ri sdi ct i on once t h e T ax C ou rt h as rul ed on t h e m eri t s of t h e t ax d i spu t e. The j udg m e nti s VA CA TE D a nd REM AN D ED . W e e xp r e s s no vi e w o n t he u l t i m ate m eri t s of

t h e case or on w h at r u l i n gs t h e di st ri ctcourtshou l d m ak e on r e m and . Case: 09-60407 Document: 00511122961 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/26/2010