alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER WITHDRAWING MEDIATION ORDER

Cause number: 01-16-00007-CV

Style: Meseret Ayele d/b/a Mae Solutions, LLC v. Jani-King of Houston, Inc.

Date motion filed: February 3, 2016

Type of Motion: Objection to Mediation

Party filing motion: Appellee

It is ordered that Appellee=s objection to mediation is granted. We withdraw our 

Mediation Order dated February 1, 2016.

Judge's signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 x Acting individually 

Date: February 3, 2016

* Absent emergency or a statement that the motion is unopposed, must wait ten days before acting on motion except for 

motion to extend time to file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a).

Note: Single justice may grant or deny any request for relief properly sought by motion, except in a civil case a single justice 

should not: (1) act on a petition for an extraordinary writ or (2) dismiss or otherwise determine an appeal or a motion 

for rehearing. TEX. R. APP. P. 10.4(a).
#### Selma Siegel et al., as Administratrices of the Estate of Max Bayer, Deceased, Respondents, v. Abraham Bayers, Appellant.

In an action to declare an assignment of a bond and mortgage void, and for incidental relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 24, 1960, denying his motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The record presents issues of fact which must he resolved by trial. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 240
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

§ 240.15g-2 Penny stock disclosure document relating to the penny stock market. ( a ) It shall be unlawful for a broker or dealer to effect a transaction in any penny stock for or with the account of a customer unless, prior to effecting such transaction, the broker or dealer has furnished to the customer a document containing the information set forth in Schedule 15G, § 240.15g-100, and has obtained from the customer a signed and dated acknowledgment of receipt of the document.
( b ) Regardless of the form of acknowledgment used to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, it shall be unlawful for a broker or dealer to effect a transaction in any penny stock for or with the account of a customer less than two business days after the broker or dealer sends such document.
( c ) The broker or dealer shall preserve, as part of its records, a copy of the written acknowledgment required by paragraph (a) of this section for the period specified in 17 CFR 240.17a-4(b) of this chapter.
( d ) Upon request of the customer, the broker or dealer shall furnish the customer with a copy of the information set forth on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/microcapstock.htm .*
[58 FR 37417, July 12, 1993, as amended at 70 FR 40632, July 13, 2005]
#### In the Matter of Adolphus B., Appellant, v Shante C., Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[820 NYS2d 835]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Michael F. Griffith, J.), entered September 28, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition.

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance signed by petitioner and the attorneys for the parties on August 31, 2006,

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation. Present — Kehoe, J.P, Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.
#### § 1429.2 Transfer and consolidation of cases.

In any matter arising pursuant to parts 1422 and 1423 of this subchapter, whenever it appears necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of the Foreign Service Labor-Management Relations Statute or to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, Regional Directors may consolidate cases within their own region or may transfer such cases to any other region, for the purpose of investigation or consolidation with any proceedings which may have been instituted in, or transferred to, such region.
#### HARRIS v. FT. MILLER PULP & PAPER CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 8, 1905.)

Ripabian Owners—Dams—Construction of Deed.

Where plaintiff’s grantor conveyed to defendant’s grantor the right to build a dam across a river and abut the same against the bank on the farm of plaintiff’s grantor, reserving “all water rights, and privileges to use the same from said dam,” plaintiff could not compel defendant at its own expense to construct an opening in the dam in order that plaintiff might use the water.

*960Appeal from Special Term, Saratoga County.

Action by John C. Harris against the Ft. Miller Pulp & Paper Company. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before PARKER, P. J., and SMITH, CHASE, CHESTER, and HOUGHTON, JJ.

C. S. & C. C. Lester, for appellant.

C. H. Sturges, for respondent.

CHESTER, J.

The suit is brought to require the defendant to make an opening in a dam across the Hudson river so as to permit the plaintiff, who owns lands on the west side of such river opposite to lands owned by the defendant on the east side thereof, to enjoy certain water rights which he claims belong to him, and which were reserved in a certain grant from one Vandenburgh, his predecessor in title, to the predecessor in title of the defendant, of the right to build and maintain a darn across said river. The facts are sufficiently stated in the report of the case when it was here upon a former appeal, and need not be here repeated. Harris v. The Ft. Miller Pulp & Paper Company, *79*App. Div. 225, 79 N. Y. Supp. 1013. Neither by his complaint nor by the brief of his counsel in this court has the appellant made any criticism of the manner of construction of said dam, except for the absence of an opening therein on his side of the river. The defendant, in its answer, denies that it has refused to permit the plaintiff to make such an opening. We entertain no doubt that under the reservation in the grant to the plaintiff’s predecessor in title “of all water rights and privileges to use the same from said dam,” the plaintiff, at any time he desires to exercise the privilege to use his proportion of the water from said dam, has a right to make an opening therein adequate for that purpose. The evidence of an engineer testifying on behalf of the plaintiff shows that it is entirely practicable to make an opening in the dam so that the plaintiff can use half of the flow of the river and the defendant can use the other half. This court decided upon the former appeal that the defendant could not be required to make such opening, and that, if the plaintiff desires to use the water he has the right to use, he must make the opening at his expense. That decision is controlling upon this appeal, and, there being no substantial change in the facts here, we must therefore affirm the judgment dismissing the complaint.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### § 1506.2 What types of claims do these standards and procedures cover?

These standards and procedures are applicable to all claims and debts for which a statute, regulation or contract does not prescribe different standards or procedures.
§ 1104.17 Confidentiality of archaeological resource information. ( a ) The Commissioner shall not make available to the public, under subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5 of the United States Code or any other provision of law, information concerning the nature and location of any archaeological resource, with the following exceptions: ( 1 ) The Commissioner may make information available, provided that the disclosure will further the purposes of the Act and this part, or the Act of June 27, 1960, as amended (16 U.S.C. 469-469c), without risking harm to the archaeological resource or to the site in which it is located.
( 2 ) The Commissioner shall make information available, when the Governor of any State has submitted to the Commissioner a written request for information, concerning the archaeological resources within the requesting Governor's State, provided that the request includes: ( i ) The specific archaeological resource or area about which information is sought;
( ii ) The purpose for which the information is sought; and
( iii ) The Governor's written commitment to adequately protect the confidentiality of the information.
**Exhibit 31.1****Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification of Principal Executive Officer**I, James H. Long, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of INX Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: August 18, 2006 /s/ JAMES H. LONG   James H. Long, Chief Executive Officer      
29
July

31, 2013
Mr. James Whedbee 5816 NE. Buttonwood Tree L ane Gladstone, MO 64119 Dear Mr. Whedbee : This is in response to your March 23, 2013 letter sent to the public docket (No. FAA
- 20 13
- 0305 ) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration to am end part 71, Subpart E of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR) . The petition for rulemaking requested an amendment to address airspace changes resulting from the closure of certain air traffic control towers. Specifically , you request that when tower closures are planned for a temporary

period, the associated Class D airspace area would revert to a Class E surface area
. As s tate d in your petition, the FAA was preparing to close numerous air traffic control towers at locations across the country due to budget cuts anticipated as a result of sequestration. On May 1, 2013, Congress enacted the Red ucing Flight Delay s Act of 2013 ( Pub. L . No. 113
- 9, 127 Stat. 443 ) . The Act provides the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary ) with discretion to transfer up to $253 million from funds "available for obligation in [fiscal year 2013] as discretionary

grants - in
- aid for airports pursuant to section 47117(f) of T itle 49, United States Code" or "any other program or account of the [FAA]" to "appropriation s accounts providing for the operations of the [FAA]," to the extent that the Secretary determines the transfer of funds "to be necessary to prevent reduced operations and staffing of the [FAA] during fiscal y ear 2013 to ensure a safe and efficient air tra nsportation sy stem" ( Pub. L . No. 113
- 9, § 2(a), (c), 127 Stat. 443
- 44 ) . On May 10, 2013, the Secretary

announced that he had determined that the new legislation would allow FAA to transfer sufficient funds to continue funding the 149 contract towers, and the towers would thus remain funded for the remainder of fiscal y ear 2013. When the FAA responds to petitions for rulemaking, it must follow the requirements of 14 CFR part 11, particularly those guidelines for processing petitions for rulemaking found in § 11.73. As stated in that section, the FAA uses the following criteria when making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition for rulemaking: 1) the immediacy

of the safety

or security

concerns the petition raises; 2) the priority

of other FAA issues; and2

3) the resources we have available to address these issues. While the issues raised in your petition may have merit, they

do not address an immediate safety concern . Therefore, this request is denied
. Your comment and reasons for a rule change will be considered if the agency undertakes future rulemaking in this area. Accordingly , Docket No. FAA
- 2013
- 0305 is being closed. Sincerely , /s/ Ellen Crum Manager, Airspace and Rules Team
#### In the Matter of Cartier, Inc., Respondent, v. William E. Boyland et al., Constituting the Tax Commission of the City of New York, Appellants.

Order entered on December 15, 1960 unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the assessments of the property at 651-653 Fifth Avenue, Manhattan, for the years 19.42-1943, 1943-1944, 1952-1953, 1954-1955, and 1956-1957 through 1959-1960, are reinstated. The evidence as to value, based on income and the sales of comparable properties, leads us to conclude that the reductions in the assessments are unwarranted. This conclusion is fortified by the over-all price paid for this property and the adjoining parcel in 1950 in the light of their relative values and after giving due consideration to the circumstances under which the lease was entered into prior to the sale and its impact upon the purchase price. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
§ 128.15 Orders containing probationary periods. ( a ) *Revocation of probationary periods.* A debarment order may set a probationary period during which the order may be held in abeyance for all or part of the debarment period, subject to the conditions stated therein. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Defense Trade Controls may apply, without notice to any person to be affected thereby, to the Administrative Law Judge for a recommendation on the appropriateness of revoking probation when it appears that the conditions of the probation have been breached. The facts in support of the application will be presented to the Administrative Law Judge, who will report thereon and make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs. The latter will make a determination whether to revoke probation and will issue an appropriate order. The party affected by this action may request the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs to reconsider the decision by submitting a request within 10 days of the date of the order.
( b ) *Hearings* — ( 1 ) *Objections upon notice.* Any person affected by an application upon notice to revoke probation, within the time specified in the notice, may file objections with the Administrative Law Judge.
( 2 ) *Objections to order without notice.* Any person adversely affected by an order revoking probation, without notice may request that the order be set aside by filing his objections thereto with the Administrative Law Judge. The request will not stay the effective date of the order or revocation.
( 3 ) *Requirements for filing objections.* Objections filed with the Administrative Law Judge must be submitted in writing and in duplicate. A copy must be simultaneously submitted to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. Denials and admissions, as well as any mitigating circumstances, which the person affected intends to present must be set forth in or accompany the letter of objection and must be supported by evidence. A request for an oral hearing may be made at the time of filing objections.
( 4 ) *Determination.* The application and objections thereto will be referred to the Administrative Law Judge. An oral hearing if requested, will be conducted at an early convenient date, unless the objections filed raise no issues of material fact to be determined. The Administrative Law Judge will report the facts and make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, who will determine whether the application should be granted or denied and will issue an appropriate order. A copy of the order and of the Administrative Law Judge's report will be furnished to any person affected thereby.
( 5 ) *Effect of revocation on other actions.* The revocation of a probationary period will not preclude any other action concerning a further violation, even where revocation is based on the further violation.
[61 FR 48834, Sept. 17, 1996, as amended at 71 FR 20552, Apr. 21, 2006; 78 FR 52689, Aug. 26, 2013; 79 FR 8089, Feb. 11, 2014]
Editorial Note on Part 240
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

§ 240.15a-4 Forty-five day exemption from registration for certain members of national securities exchanges. ( a ) A natural person who is a member of a national securities exchange shall, upon termination of his association with a registered broker-dealer, be exempt, for a period of forty-five days after such termination, from the registration requirement of section 15(a) of the Act solely for the purpose of continuing to effect transactions on the floor of such exchange if ( 1 ) such person has filed with the Commission an application for registration as a broker-dealer and such person complies in all material respects with rules of the Commission applicable to registered brokers and dealers and
( 2 ) such exchange has filed with the Commission a statement that it has reviewed such application and that there do not appear to be grounds for its denial.
( b ) The exemption from registration provided by this rule shall not be available to any person while there is pending before the Commission any proceeding involving any such person pursuant to section 15(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
[41 FR 18290, May 3, 1976]
NO. SCPW-12-0000429

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CHRIS GRINDLING

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Chris Grindling’s petition for a writ of mandamus filed on April 30, 2012, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to relief. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action.). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, May 23, 2012. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000429 23-MAY-2012 10:22 AM
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4071 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4071

   To amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide that the 
provisions relating to countervailing duties apply to nonmarket economy 
                               countries.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 17, 2012

Ms. Baldwin (for herself and Mr. Ribble) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide that the 
provisions relating to countervailing duties apply to nonmarket economy 
                               countries.

    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 ``China Hurts Economic Advancement 
Through Subsidies Act'' or ``CHEATS Act''.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES TO NONMARKET ECONOMIES AND 
              STRENGTHENING APPLICATION OF THE LAW.

    (a) In General.--Section 701(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1671(a)(1)) is amended by inserting ``(including a nonmarket 
economy country)'' after ``country'' each place it appears.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to 
petitions filed under section 702 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1671a) on or after October 1, 2006.
                                 <all>
```