alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter ofWoolpert LLC 

2013EA250068 

Judge Not Assigned 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

Complainant, Federal Aviation Administration, hereby notifies the United States 

Department of Transportation, Office of Hearings, and the Respondent, pursuant to 14 

C.F.R. §13.204(b), that it shall be represented in the above-stated action by the attorney 

listed below. All communications, notices, pleadings, or documents are respectfully 

requested to be forwarded as follows: 

Daniel Kohlmeyer 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

Telephone: 718 553-3266 

Facsimile: 718 995-5699 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alfred R. Johnson, Jr. 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

Daniel Kohlmeyer 

Attorney 

RECEI\/ED 

MAR 2 3 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

Dated: :3/!.!y'}.>-

7 7 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that on this day copies of the foregoing Notice of Appearance were placed 

in the United States mail, postage prepaid, Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested 

addressed as follows: 

Gregory S. Winton, Esq. 

The Aviation Law Firm 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Annapolis, MD 2140 I 

Telefax: (866) 568-9886 

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

~IF FILING BY FEDERAL EXPRESS 

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Building - Room 20 14 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Date: __ ~_1A_R _1_7_zo_15 __ 

L aHooks 

J1araiegal Specialist 

Office of Regional Counsel 

I Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

2
```

[115th Congress Public Law 341]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 5039]]

Public Law 115-341
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   400 N. Main Street, Encinal, Texas, as the ``Encinal Veterans Post 
            Office''. <<NOTE: Dec. 21, 2018 -  [H.R. 1211]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ENCINAL VETERANS POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 400 N. Main Street, Encinal, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Encinal Veterans Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Encinal 
Veterans Post Office''.

    Approved December 21, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1211:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            Nov. 29, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 12, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
### 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. 03-12-00552- CV

Texas Com m ission on En vironm ental Quali ty and Las Brisas En ergy C enter , LLC, Appellan ts // En vironm ental Defense F und , Inc. and Texas Clean Air Citie s Coalition, Cross-A ppellan ts

v. Envi ronm ental Defense F und , Inc.; Texas Clean Air Cit ies Coalition; Sierra Club; and Clean Econom y Coalition, App ellees // Texas Com m ission on En vironm ental Quali ty and

Las Brisas E nergy Ce nter, LLC, Cr oss-Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 261 ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 1-0 0136 4, H ONO RAB LE STEP HEN Y ELENOSK Y , JUDGE P RESIDING

O R D E R

P ER CURIAM

Cross-appe llants Environmental Def ense Fund, I nc. and Texas Clean Air Citi es Coalition have filed an unopposed motion to dismiss their appea l. We g rant the motion and dismiss the cross-appea l. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.1(a) . The appeal filed by appellants Tex as C ommissi on
on Environmental Quality and L as Br isas Energ y Center, L L C will continue. We have amende d the sty le of the case to ref

lect: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality a n d L a s B r isas Energy Center, L LC, Appellants v. E n vi r o n mental Defense Fund, Inc.; Texas C lean Ai r Citi es Coalition; Sierra Club; and Clean Economy Coalition, Appellees

.

I t is ordere d April 25, 2014. Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and Rose
#### Mary A. Connolly, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, *v.*Nassau Ferry Company, Appellant.

Appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss the complaint.

Per Curiam:

The moving papers show undoubted laches and neglect upon the part of the plaintiff, and are met by no affidavit on her part either excusing her delay or furnishing an allegation of merits. The order appealed from is, therefore, reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Present — Clarke, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Smith, JJ. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.
#### In the Matter of Marcia Garcia, Appellant, v Ernesto Carballo, Sr., Respondent.

[715 NYS2d 891]

—In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Porzio, J.), dated June 1, 1999, which awarded the parties joint custody of their son, with physical custody to the father and liberal visitation to her.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant’s assigned counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous appealable issues which could be raised on appeal. The order appealed from was entered upon the appellant’s consent, and therefore is not appealable *(see, Matter of Carey K.,*265 AD2d 617; *Matter of Chiakpo v Obi,*255 AD2d 579). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and assigned counsel’s application is academic. Santucci, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.
#### George G. Brandenburg and Others, as Copartners, etc., Respondents, v. Eclipse Machine Company, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 412 

To amend the lead prohibition provisions of the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 to provide an exemption for certain off-highway 

vehicles, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 25, 2011 

Mr. REHBERG (for himself, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. DUNCAN of 

Tennessee, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, Mr. HERGER, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. 

JONES, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. MCKINLEY, Mr. PAUL, Mr. ROSS of Arkansas, Mr. SCHOCK, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. 

SIMPSON, Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, Mr. TERRY, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. 

WALZ of Minnesota, Mr. WESTMORELAND, and Mr. YOUNG of Alaska) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the lead prohibition provisions of the Consumer 

Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 to provide 

an exemption for certain off-highway vehicles, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Kids Just Want to 

5 Ride Act’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 412 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FOR OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES. 

2 (a) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN MATERIALS OR PROD3 UCTS AND INACCESSIBLE COMPONENT PARTS.—Section 

4 101(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act 

5 of 2008 is amended by redesignating paragraph (5) as 

6 paragraph (6) and inserting after paragraph (4) the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(5) EXCEPTION FOR OFF-HIGHWAY VEHI9 CLES.— 

10 ‘‘(A) DETERMINATION BY COMMISSION.— 

11 Subsection (a) shall not apply to off-highway 

12 vehicles. 

13 ‘‘(B) OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES DE14 FINED.—For purposes of this section, the term 

15 ‘off-highway vehicle’ means any motorized vehi16 cle designed to travel on 2, 3, or 4 wheels, hav17 ing a seat designed to be straddled by the oper18 ator and handlebars for steering control, and 

19 such term also includes snowmobiles.’’. 

20 (b) ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT.—Such section is fur21 ther amended in paragraph (1)(A) by striking ‘‘any’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

 537986.1 

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

THOMAS M. HERLIHY (SBN 83615) 

JOHN T. BURNITE (SBN 162223) 

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 

525 Market Street, 17th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105-2725 

Tel.: (415) 433-0990 

Fax: (415) 434-1370 

Email: herlihy@wilsonelser.com

john.burnite@wilsonelser.com

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNUM GROUP (previously known as 

UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION), 

THE PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

and NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LEWIS G. SHEPLER II, M.D. 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION; THE 

PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY and UNUM GROUP, inclusive, 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: C08-00240 MEJ 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case 3:08-cv-00240-MEJ Document 80 Filed 04/30/10 Page 1 of 2
-1- 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No.: C08-00240 MEJ 

 537986.1

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

 The parties, plaintiff Lewis G. Shepler II, M.D. and defendants Unum Group (previously 

known as UnumProvident Corporation), The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, and New 

York Life Insurance Company (“defendants”), hereby stipulate to continue the Case 

Management Conference presently scheduled for May 6, 2010 to June 10, 2010. The parties are 

engaged in ongoing settlement negotiations and need additional time to discuss settlement. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

KNOX RICKSEN, LLP 

 

Dated: April 29, 2010 By_______/s/____________________ 

 Thomas E. Fraysse 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 LEWIS G. SHEPLER II, M.D. 

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & 

DICKER LLP 

 

Dated: April 29, 2010 By_________/s/_____________________ 

 Thomas M. Herlihy 

 John T. Burnite 

 Attorney for Defendants 

UNUM GROUP (Previously known as 

UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION), 

THE PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY and NEW YORK LIFE 

INSURANCE COMPANY 

ORDER

 IT IS SO ORDERED that the Case Management Conference be continued to June 10, 

2010. 

Date: April ___, 2010 ___________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

30

Case 3:08-cv-00240-MEJ Document 80 Filed 04/30/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 404.5 Securities counts by registered government securities brokers and dealers. ( a ) *Securities counts.* Every registered government securities broker or dealer shall comply with the requirements of § 240.17a-13 of this title (Commission Rule 17a-13), with the modification that references to “broker or dealer” and “broker and dealer registered pursuant to Section 15 of the Act” include registered government securities brokers or dealers.
( b ) *Effective date.* This section shall be effective on October 31, 1987.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1535-0089) [52 FR 27952, July 24, 1987, as amended at 60 FR 11026, Mar. 1, 1995]
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.

§ 240.15b1-3 Registration of successor to registered broker or dealer. ( a ) In the event that a broker or dealer succeeds to and continues the business of a broker or dealer registered pursuant to section 15(b) of the Act, the registration of the predecessor shall be deemed to remain effective as the registration of the successor if the successor, within 30 days after such succession, files an application for registration on Form BD, and the predecessor files a notice of withdrawal from registration on Form BDW; *Provided, however,* That the registration of the predecessor broker or dealer will cease to be effective as the registration of the successor broker or dealer 45 days after the application for registration on Form BD is filed by such successor.
( b ) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, if a broker or dealer succeeds to and continues the business of a registered predecessor broker or dealer, and the succession is based solely on a change in the predecessor's date or state of incorporation, form of organization, or composition of a partnership, the successor may, within 30 days after the succession, amend the registration of the predecessor broker or dealer on Form BD to reflect these changes. This amendment shall be deemed an application for registration filed by the predecessor and adopted by the successor.
[58 FR 10, Jan. 4, 1993]
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Correction—to add USDA, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service—Wildlife Services (APHIS—WS), and the State of South Dakota as formal Cooperating Agencies with the Nebraska National Forest and Associated Units in the Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Add e-mail address for electronic comments.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Forest Service published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         on November 1, 2004, providing notice that the Nebraska National Forest and Associated Units was intending to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement regarding the conservation and management of the black-tailed prairie dog. The document failed to note that the USDA, APHIS—WS and the State of South Dakota are formally designated Cooperating Agencies with the Forest Service in the preparation of the environnmental impact statement.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Perry, 605-279-2125.

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of November 1, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 210), on page 63351 prior to the subheading “Scoping,” insert a subheading “Cooperating Agencies.” Following the subheading “Cooperating Agencies” insert the following—“USDA, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service—Wildlife Service (APHIS—WS) and the State of South Dakota have been granted cooperating agency status for the purpose of cooperating and coordinating with the Forest Service in providing relevant research and information to be used in the development of EIS alternatives and implementation of management plan direction” Under the subheading “Responsible Official,” (page 63351) following the address add “E-mail comments to:                         *comments-rocky-mountain-nebraska@fs.fed.us”*

Dated: November 22, 2004.

Donald J. Bright,

Forest Supervisor, Nebraska National Forest and Associated Units.

[FR Doc. 04-27079 Filed 12-9-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

549461.1

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

THOMAS M. HERLIHY (SBN 83615)

JOHN T. BURNITE (SBN 162223)

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP

525 Market Street, 17

th

Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105-2725

Tel.: (415) 433-0990

Fax: (415) 434-1370

Email: herlihy@wilsonelser.com

john.burnite@wilsonelser.com

Attorneys for Defendants

UNUM GROUP (previously known as

UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION),

THE PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

and NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEWIS G. SHEPLER II, M.D.

Plaintiff,

vs.

UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION; THE

PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY and UNUM GROUP, inclusive,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C08-00240 MEJ

STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF

TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT

Case 3:08-cv-00240-MEJ Document 83 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 2
-1-

STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Case No.: C08-00240 MEJ

549461.1

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

Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 6-1(a), the parties, plaintiff Lewis G. Shepler II,

M.D. and defendants Unum Group (previously known as UnumProvident Corporation), The Paul

Revere Life Insurance Company, and New York Life Insurance Company (“defendants”), hereby

stipulate that defendants shall have an extension to respond to the Complaint up to and including

July 15, 2010.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

KNOX RICKSEN, LLP

Dated: June 3, 2010 By_______/s/____________________

Thomas E. Fraysse

Attorney for Plaintiff

LEWIS G. SHEPLER II, M.D.

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN &

DICKER LLP

Dated: June 3, 2010 By_________/s/_____________________

Thomas M. Herlihy

John T. Burnite

Attorney for Defendants

UNUM GROUP (Previously known as

UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION),

THE PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY and NEW YORK LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED that defendants have up to and including July 15, 2010 to respond

to plaintiff’s complaint.

Date: June __, 2010 _____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 3:08-cv-00240-MEJ Document 83 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT LIGHTBURN AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 97-1058 v. RAPTOR SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant. LIGHTBURN AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 97-1448 v. RAPTOR SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee. LIGHTBURN AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 97-1450 v. RAPTOR SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-95-576-WMN) Argued: October 28, 1997 Decided: December 17, 1997Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Robert Todd Cronan, GOODWIN, PROCTOR & HOAR, L.L.P., Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellant. Matthew Scott Sturtz, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Steven E. Skwara, GOODWIN, PROCTOR & HOAR, L.L.P., Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellant. Jefferson V. Wright, Joseph W. Hovermill, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Lightburn and Associates, Inc. ("LAI") sued Raptor Systems, Inc. ("Raptor"), alleging that Raptor hindered sales to two potential LAIcustomers. Raptor counterclaimed, alleging that as a reseller of Raptor's products LAI failed diligently to promote sales and prejudiced Raptor's own sales efforts. The district court granted Raptor summaryjudgment on LAI's claims, refusing to attribute LAI's loss of potential business to Raptor. The court found that one sale never took place because the prospective purchaser independently decided it did not need the products LAI offered and that the other potential customer refused to contract with LAI because it liked neither its pr oducts nor its president. The district court also granted LAI summary judgment
2on Raptor's counterclaims, finding no breach of the obligation to promote Raptor products during the life of an exclusive reselling agreement, no continuing duty to promote after that agreement lapsed, and no evidence that LAI's actions harmed Raptor's reputation with potential customers.Our review of the record, written and oral submissions of the parties, and the appropriate legal standards persuades us of the correctness of the district court's grant of summary judgment to Raptor. We therefore affirm that judgment on the reasoning set forth in the district court's memorandum opinion, Lightburn & Associates, Inc. v. Raptor Systems, Inc. , Civil No. WMN-95-576 (D. Md. D ecember 9, 1996). At oral argument, Raptor abandoned its counterclaims if it prevailed on LAI's suit against it.
AFFIRMED 3
§ 128.5 Answer and demand for oral hearing. ( a ) *When to answer.* The respondent is required to answer the charging letter within 30 days after service.
( b ) *Contents of answer.* An answer must be responsive to the charging letter. It must fully set forth the nature of the respondent's defense or defenses. In the answer, the respondent must admit or deny specifically each separate allegation of the charging letter, unless the respondent is without knowledge, in which case the respondent's answer shall so state and the statement shall operate as denial. Failure to deny or controvert any particular allegation will be deemed an admission thereof. The answer may set forth such additional or new matter as the respondent believes support a defense or claim of mitigation. Any defense or partial defense not specifically set forth in an answer shall be deemed waived. Evidence offered thereon by the respondent at a hearing may be refused except upon good cause being shown. If the respondent does not demand an oral hearing, he or she shall transmit, within seven (7) days after the service of his or her answer, original or photocopies of all correspondence, papers, records, affidavits, and other documentary or written evidence having any bearing upon or connection with the matters in issue. If any such materials are in language other than English, translations into English shall be submitted at the same time.
( c ) *Submission of answer.* The answer, written demand for oral hearing (if any) and supporting evidence required by paragraph (b) of this section shall be in duplicate and mailed or delivered to the designated Administrative Law Judge. A copy shall be simultaneously mailed to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Defense Trade Controls, SA-1, Room 1200, Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-0112, or delivered to 2401 Street NW., Washington, DC addressed to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Defense Trade Controls, SA-1, Room 1200, Department of State, Washington, DC 20037.
[58 FR 39320, July 22, 1993, as amended at 61 FR 48832, Sept. 17, 1996; 71 FR 20551, Apr. 21, 2006; 79 FR 8089, Feb. 11, 2014]