alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1423.5 Selection of the unfair labor practice procedure or the negotiability procedure. ( a ) Where a labor organization files an unfair labor practice charge pursuant to this part which involves a negotiability issue, and the labor organization also files pursuant to part 1424 of this subchapter a petition for review of the same negotiability issue, the Board and the General Counsel ordinarily will not process the unfair labor practice charge and the petition for review simultaneously.
( b ) Under such circumstances, the labor organization must select under which procedure to proceed. Upon selection of one procedure, further action under the other procedure will ordinarily be suspended. Such selection must be made regardless of whether the unfair labor practice charge or the petition for review of a negotiability issue is filed first. Notification of this selection must be made in writing at the time that both procedures have been invoked, and must be served on the Board, the appropriate Regional Director and all parties to both the unfair labor practice case and the negotiability case.
( c ) Cases which solely involve an agency's allegation that the duty to bargain in good faith does not extend to the matter proposed to be bargained and which do not involve actual or contemplated changes in conditions of employment may only be filed under part 1424 of this subchapter.
Case 3:08-cv-01341-JSW Document 167 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 7 Case3:08-cv-01341-JSW Document166 Filed07/13/10 Page1 of 7
Case 3:08-cv-01341-JSW Document 167 Filed 07/13/10 Page 2 of 7 Case3:08-cv-01341-JSW Document166 Filed07/13/10 Page2 of 7
Case 3:08-cv-01341-JSW Document 167 Filed 07/13/10 Page 3 of 7 Case3:08-cv-01341-JSW Document166 Filed07/13/10 Page3 of 7
Case 3:08-cv-01341-JSW Document 167 Filed 07/13/10 Page 4 of 7 Case3:08-cv-01341-JSW Document166 Filed07/13/10 Page4 of 7
Case 3:08-cv-01341-JSW Document 167 Filed 07/13/10 Page 5 of 7 Case3:08-cv-01341-JSW Document166 Filed07/13/10 Page5 of 7
Case 3:08-cv-01341-JSW Document 167 Filed 07/13/10 Page 6 of 7 Case3:08-cv-01341-JSW Document166 Filed07/13/10 Page6 of 7
Case3:08-cv-01341-JSW Document166 Filed07/13/10 Page7 of 7

13

Case 3:08-cv-01341-JSW Document 167 Filed 07/13/10 Page 7 of 7
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Jose A. Cordero, Also Known as Jose Rodriguez, Respondent, v Paul Metz, as Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered on September 24, 1976 in Washington County, which sustained a writ of habeas corpus and released petitioner from custody. Petitioner was sentenced as a second felony offender on March 15, 1976 by the Suffolk County Judge to two concurrent one and one-half to three-year sentences for attempted assault second degree and attempted burglary third degree (Penal Law, § 70.06). These concurrent sentences were also to run concurrently with a previous sentence not yet expired. At the time of sentencing in Suffolk County petitioner had served 33 months on his prior conviction and the court, during the allocution with petitioner, created the impression that it was possible that the Department of Correction might apply the time served on the prior conviction (33 months) against the maximum sentence of 36 months then being imposed. Accordingly, on May 7, 1976 petitioner made application for a writ of habeas corpus to the Supreme Court in the county of his incarceration alleging that he was being held beyond the sentence imposed. The writ was granted on July 20, 1976 and the petitioner was *939discharged from custody by Supreme Court judgment dated September 24, 1976. Special Term erred sustaining the writ of habeas corpus. The proper procedure would have been to refer the matter to the sentencing court in Suffolk County, there to be considered as a motion by petitioner (defendant) for relief pursuant to CPL article 440. We have held that habeas corpus does not lie when the petitioner has a more appropriate remedy such as *coram nobis*[now CPL art 440] *(People ex rel. White v La Vallee,*51 AD2d 1093; *People ex rel. Stewart v La Vallee,*51 AD2d 1092; *People ex rel. Negron v Herold,*34 AD2d 1047; see, also, *People ex rel. Thompson v Mancusi,*33 AD2d 643). By this determination we do not conclude that a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 is an exclusive remedy under all circumstances, thereby abolishing the habeas corpus writ as a vehicle for attacking the validity of a conviction. We do hold, however, that under the facts here present and in the absence of any allegations by petitioner of unconstitutionality, CPL article 440 is the proper remedy. The procedures for attacking sentencing errors have been legislatively established and must be followed in the absence, as here, of grave constitutional issues reviewable by the ancient state writ of habeas corpus (see Denzer, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 11-A, CPL 440.10, pp 183-184). Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Washington County, with instruction that the matter be transferred to the Trial Part of the Suffolk County Court. Koreman, P. J., Kane, Mahoney, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 142

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 142 appear at 68 FR 51359, Aug. 26, 2003.

#### §§ 142.18-142.40 [Reserved]
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4287 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the definition of homeless 

veteran for purposes of benefits under the laws administered by the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 28, 2012 

Ms. HAHN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the definition of homeless veteran for purposes of benefits under 

the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

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


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4287 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF HOMELESS 

2 VETERAN FOR PURPOSES OF BENEFITS 

3 UNDER THE LAWS ADMINISTERED BY THE 

4 SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

5 Section 2002(1) of title 38, United States Code, is 

6 amended by inserting ‘‘or (b)’’ after ‘‘section 103(a)’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Dismiss and Opinion Filed June 7, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 92

- 01112

- CV
KEENE CORPORATION , Appellant

V. OLLIS E. KIRK, ET AL , Appellees
On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 90

- 5245

- J
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Osborne We reinstate this appeal. In 199 4 , we abated this case due to bankruptcy. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 8.2. The Court conducted an independent review of the federal Public
Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system which does not show a
pending bankruptcy case associated with this appeal

.
We notified the parties by letter, requesting they inform the Court of the status
of the bankruptcy and of this appeal. We cautioned that the failure to respond would
result in the appeal being dismissed for want of prosecution. See id . 42.3(b),(c). To

dat e, neither party has responded.– 2

–

Because we gave the parties an opportunity to show why we should not
dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and no one responded, we dismiss this
appeal. See id . 42.3(b),(c); Brewer v. Admiral Ins. Co ., 2002 WL 31312990 , at *1
(Tex. App.

— Dallas Oct. 16, 2002, no writ) (per curiam) (not designated for
publication).

9201112f.p05 /Leslie Osborne// LESLIE OSBORNE JUSTICE– 3

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

KEENE CORPORATION, Appellant

No. 05

- 92

- 01112

- CV V.
OLLIS E. KIRK, ET AL, Appellees On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 90

- 5245

- J. Opinion delivered by Justice Osborne. Justices Pedersen, III and Nowell participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

Judgment entered this 7 th day of June, 2021.
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

No. 08-cv-01327-MMC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

31521153 

BRUCE G. VANYO (SBN: 60134) 

EMAIL: bruce.vanyo@kattenlaw.com

RICHARD H. ZELICHOV (SBN: 193858) 

EMAIL: richard.zelichov@kattenlaw.com 

KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 

2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600 

Los Angeles, California 90067-3012 

Telephone: 310.788.4400 

Facsimile: 310.788.4471 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Camtek, Ltd., Rafi Amit, Ronit Dulberg, 

Yotam Stern, and Moshe Amit 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

(SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION) 

YUVAL LAPINER, Individually and on 

Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

CAMTEK, LTD., RAFI AMIT, RONIT 

DULBERG, YOTAM STERN and MOSHE 

AMIT

 Defendants. 

Case No. 08-cv-01327-MMC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

Case 3:08-cv-01327-MMC Document 97 Filed 04/21/10 Page 1 of 3
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

1

No. 08-cv-01327-MMC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

31521153 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

The Case Management Conference currently scheduled for May 14, 2010 shall be continued 

until July 9, 2010. 

Dated: April ___, 2010 

United States District Court Judge 

21

Case 3:08-cv-01327-MMC Document 97 Filed 04/21/10 Page 2 of 3
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

No. 08-cv-01327-MMC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

31521153 

PROOF OF SERVICE

 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 

and not a party to the within action; my business address is Katten, Muchin Rosenman LLP, 2029 

Century Park East, Suite 2600, Los Angeles, California 90067.

On April 16, 2010, I served the foregoing document described as [PROPOSED] ORDER 

RE: CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE on all interested parties in this action: 

[ X ] (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) I am personally and readily familiar with the firm’s 

practice of collection and processing of document(s) to be transmitted electronically in Portable 

Document Format (PDF) and I certify that I caused the foregoing document on this date to be filed 

electronically with the Clerk of the Court through ECF. 

I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose 

direction the service was made. 

Executed on April 16, 2010, at Los Angeles, California. 

 /s/ 

 Yuval M. Rogson 

Case 3:08-cv-01327-MMC Document 97 Filed 04/21/10 Page 3 of 3
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4214 

To amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to prohibit the use, production, 

sale, importation, or exportation of the poison sodium fluoroacetate 

(known as ‘‘Compound 1080’’) and to prohibit the use of sodium cyanide 

for predator control. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 20, 2012 

Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. DEFAZIO) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 

addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to prohibit 

the use, production, sale, importation, or exportation of 

the poison sodium fluoroacetate (known as ‘‘Compound 

1080’’) and to prohibit the use of sodium cyanide for 

predator control. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Compound 1080 and 

5 Sodium Cyanide Elimination Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4214 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE, PRODUCTION, SALE, IMPOR2 TATION, OR EXPORTATION OF COMPOUND 

3 1080. 

4 Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 

5 U.S.C. 2605) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing new subsection: 

7 ‘‘(g) COMPOUND 1080.—The use, production, sale, 

8 importation, or exportation of sodium fluoroacetate 

9 (known as ‘Compound 1080’) is prohibited. Any person 

10 who violates this subsection shall be fined under title 18, 

11 United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, 

12 or both.’’. 

13 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON USE OF SODIUM CYANIDE FOR 

14 PREDATOR CONTROL. 

15 (a) PROHIBITED ACT.—Sodium cyanide may not be 

16 used in a predator control device. 

17 (b) PENALTY.—Whoever uses sodium cyanide in a 

18 predator control device shall be fined under title 18, 

19 United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, 

20 or both. 

21 (c) PREDATOR CONTROL DEVICE.—In this section, 

22 the term ‘‘predator control device’’ means— 

23 (1) a dispenser designed to propel sodium cya24 nide when activated by an animal; and 

25 (2) any other means of dispensing sodium cya26 nide, including in the form of sodium cyanide capVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:38 Mar 20, 2012 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4214.IH H4214

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4214 IH

1 sules, for wildlife management or other animal con2 trol purposes. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
DISMISS and Opinion Filed January 25, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00496-CV 

KIMBERLY HENDERSON, Appellant 

V. 

RAHMAN PROPERTIES, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 

Hunt County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC2100183 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Smith 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

Appellant’s brief was due on December 19, 2021. When it was not filed, we 

notified appellant by postcard dated December 22, 2021 and directed her to file her 

brief, along with a motion to extend time for filing the same, by January 3, 2022. We 

cautioned appellant that the failure to file a brief or an extension motion by that time 

would result in the appeal being dismissed under rule 38.8(a)(1). To date, appellant 

has not filed a brief or motion; nor has she communicated with the Court about her 

appeal. 

 
 –2– 

Under these circumstances, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c). 

210496F.P05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

KIMBERLY HENDERSON, 

Appellant 

No. 05-21-00496-CV V. 

RAHMAN PROPERTIES, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 1, Hunt County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC2100183. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Molberg and Smith 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered January 25, 2022
### §298d. Authorization of appropriations

#### (a) In general

For the purpose of carrying out parts B, C, and D (subject to section 297t(g) of this title), there are authorized to be appropriated $137,837,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 through 2025.

#### (b) Part E

For the purpose of carrying out part E, there are authorized to be appropriated $117,135,000 for each of the fiscal years 2021 through 2025.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title VIII, §871, formerly §841, as added Pub. L. 105–392, title I, §123(5), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3569; renumbered §871 and amended Pub. L. 111–148, title V, §§5310(b)(7), 5312, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 631, 633; Pub. L. 116–136, div. A, title III, §3404(a)(13), Mar. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 394.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was classified to section 297q of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 111–148.

#### Amendments

2020—Pub. L. 116–136 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and inserted heading, substituted "$137,837,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 through 2025" for "$338,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2011 through 2016", and added subsec. (b).

2010—Pub. L. 111–148, §5312, amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section related to authorization of appropriations for fiscal years 1998 through 2002, allocations of amounts, and use of methodology.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 371P A 1 8 Filed 3 April 2020 CABARRUS COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEACHERS’ and STATE EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM; DALE R. FOLWELL, STATE TREASURER , in his official capacity; STEVEN C. TOOLE, DIRECTOR, RETIREMENT SYSTEMS DIVISION , in his official capacity
On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A

- 31 of a unanimous , unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals, No. COA17

- 1019, 2018 WL 4441260 (N.C. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2018), affirming a judgment entered on 30 May 2017 by Judge James E. Hardin Jr. , in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme
Court on 9 Decem ber 201 9

. Michael Crowell; and Tharrington Smith, LLP, by Deborah R. Stagner and Lindsay V. Smith, for petitioner

- appellee. Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Matthew W. Sawchak, Solicitor General , Blake W. Thomas , Deputy General Counsel, and Ryan Y. Park, Deputy Solicitor General , for respondent

- appellants. Brooks, Pierce, McLendon , Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., by Elizabeth L. Troutman and Jill R. Wilson; and Allison Brown Schafer for North Carolina School Boards Association, amicus curiae

.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in Cabarrus Cty

. Bd. of Ed uc . v. Dep ’ t of State Treasurer , No. 369PA18 ( N.C. Apr. 3, 20 20 ), the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.C ABARRUS C TY

. B D

. OF E DUC

. V

. B D

. OF T RS

. T EACHERS ’ AND S TATE E MPS

. ’ R ET

. S YS

. Opinion of the Court

- 2

- AFFIRMED.

Justice NEWBY dissent s for the r easons stated in his dissenting opinion in
Cabarrus Cty

. Bd. of Ed uc . v. Dep ’ t of State Treasurer , No. 369PA18 ( N.C. Apr. 3, 2020)

.
United Sates District Court

For the Northern District of California 

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

Case No. CV-08-0986-SI - 1 - [PROPOSED] ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., 

et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., 

et al., 

Defendants.

Case. No. CV-08-0986-SI 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Plaintiffs Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies ULC (collectively “AMD”) 

have moved the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 104, 402, 801, and 901 for an Order determining 

the admissibility, for proving infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,623,434 or 5,377,200, of 

documents created by ARM Limited or its predecssors, successors, and affiliates (collectively 

“ARM”), but produced by in this litigation by Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung 

Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 

Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, and Samsung Digital Imaging Co., Ltd. 

(collectively “Samsung”). 

 AMD’s motion is GRANTED. The Court holds that any document produced by Samsung 

in this litigation and either: 

(1) Received by Samsung from ARM pursuant to Samsung’s licenses with ARM for the 

eight ARM exemplar designs identified in Exhibits E and F to the Stipulation 

Regarding Exemplar Products for the Purposes of Proving Infringement / Non 

infringement (Dkt. #278); or 

(2) Cited in Samsung’s responses to AMD’s Interrogatory No. 4, Part (b), with respect 

to AMD’s asserted patents 5,623,434 and 5,377,200; 

shall be admissible if offered by AMD for the purpose of proving infringement by Samsung of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 5,623,434 or 5,377,200. 

Case 3:08-cv-00986-SI Document 306 Filed 02/10/10 Page 1 of 2
United Sates District Court

For the Northern District of California 

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

Case No. CV-08-0986-SI - 2 - [PROPOSED] ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

February __, 2010 ____________________________________ 

 Honorable Susan Illston 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:08-cv-00986-SI Document 306 Filed 02/10/10 Page 2 of 2
#### § 239.12 [Reserved]
### §254c–9. Establishment of program of grants

#### (a) In general

The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall in accordance with sections 254c–9 to 254c–13 of this title make grants to provide for projects for the establishment, operation, and coordination of effective and cost-efficient systems for the delivery of essential services to individuals with lupus and their families.

#### (b) Recipients of grants

A grant under subsection (a) may be made to an entity only if the entity is a public or nonprofit private entity, which may include a State or local government; a public or nonprofit private hospital, community-based organization, hospice, ambulatory care facility, community health center, migrant health center, or homeless health center; or other appropriate public or nonprofit private entity.

#### (c) Certain activities

To the extent practicable and appropriate, the Secretary shall ensure that projects under subsection (a) provide services for the diagnosis and disease management of lupus. Activities that the Secretary may authorize for such projects may also include the following:

(1) Delivering or enhancing outpatient, ambulatory, and home-based health and support services, including case management and comprehensive treatment services, for individuals with lupus; and delivering or enhancing support services for their families.

(2) Delivering or enhancing inpatient care management services that prevent unnecessary hospitalization or that expedite discharge, as medically appropriate, from inpatient facilities of individuals with lupus.

(3) Improving the quality, availability, and organization of health care and support services (including transportation services, attendant care, homemaker services, day or respite care, and providing counseling on financial assistance and insurance) for individuals with lupus and support services for their families.

#### (d) Integration with other programs

To the extent practicable and appropriate, the Secretary shall integrate the program under sections 254c–9 to 254c–13 of this title with other grant programs carried out by the Secretary, including the program under section 254b of this title.

(Pub. L. 106–505, title V, §521, Nov. 13, 2000, 114 Stat. 2343.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 2000, and also as part of the Public Health Improvement Act, and not as part of the Public Health Service Act which comprises this chapter.
#### §§ 120.46-120.49 [Reserved]
§ 146.205 Educational institutions and other entities controlled by religious organizations. ( a ) *Exemption.* These Title IX regulations do not apply to any operation of an educational institution or other entity that is controlled by a religious organization to the extent that application of these Title IX regulations would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization.
( b ) *Exemption claims.* An educational institution or other entity that wishes to claim the exemption set forth in paragraph (a) of this section shall do so by submitting in writing to the designated agency official a statement by the highest-ranking official of the institution, identifying the provisions of these Title IX regulations that conflict with a specific tenet of the religious organization.