alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3.7 Decorations. ( a ) Decorations tendered in recognition of active field service in time of combat operations or awarded for other outstanding or unusually meritorious performance may be accepted, retained, and worn by an employee, subject to the approval of the employing agency. Without such approval, the decoration is deemed to have been accepted on behalf of the United States and, like tangible gifts of more than minimal value, must be deposited by the employee with the designated depository office for the employing agency within sixty days after acceptance, for retention for official use or for disposal in accordance with § 3.9.
( b ) The decision as to whether a decoration has been awarded for outstanding or unusually meritorious performance will be made: ( 1 ) For the Department of State, by the supervising Assistant Secretary of State or comparable official, except that, in the case of a decoration awarded to an Assistant Secretary or other officer of comparable or higher rank, the decision shall be made by the Office of Protocol;
( 2 ) For IDCA, by the Assistant Director for Administration;
( 3 ) For AID, by the Director of Personnel Management; and
( 4 ) For USICA, by the Supervising Associate Director, the General Counsel, or the Director of the Office of Congressional and Public Liaison (for domestic employees), and by the Director of Area Offices (for overseas employees).
( c ) To justify an affirmative decision, a statement from the foreign government, preferably in the form of a citation which shows the specific basis for the tender of the award, should be supplied. An employee who has received or been tendered a decoration should forward to the designated depository office of the employing agency a request for review of the case. This request should contain a statement of circumstances of the award and such documentation from the foreign government as has accompanied it. The depository office will obtain the decision of the cognizant office as to whether the award meets the statutory criteria and thus whether the decoration may be retained and worn. Pending receipt of that decision, the decoration should remain in the custody of the recipient.
### §3058c. Organization

In order for a State to be eligible to receive allotments under this part—

(1) the State shall demonstrate eligibility under section 3025 of this title;

(2) the State agency designated by the State shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable requirements of section 3025 of this title; and

(3) each area agency on aging designated by the State agency and participating in such a program shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable requirements of section 3025 of this title.

(Pub. L. 89–73, title VII, §704, as added Pub. L. 102–375, title VII, §701, Sept. 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 1273.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 3058c, Pub. L. 89–73, title VII, §705, as added Pub. L. 98–459, title VII, §701, Oct. 9, 1984, 98 Stat. 1791, related to administration of program, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 100–175, title I, §181, title VII, §701(a), (b), Nov. 29, 1987, 101 Stat. 964, 983, effective Oct. 1, 1987, with certain exceptions.

A prior section 704 of Pub. L. 89–73 was classified to section 3045c of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 95–478.

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

#### Effective Date

Section inapplicable with respect to fiscal year 1992, see section 905(b)(6) of Pub. L. 102–375, set out as an Effective Date of 1992 Amendment note under section 3001 of this title.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 3, 2020

No. 04-20-00089-CV

VERMILLION FC, LP,

Appellant

v.

1776 ENERGY PARTNERS,

Appellee

From the 293rd Judicial District Court, Zavala County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-10-13812-ZCV

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellants’ unopposed second motion for an extension of time to file their brief is 

granted. We order appellants’ brief due August 31, 2020. Counsel is advised that no further 

extensions of time will be granted absent a timely motion that: (1) demonstrates extraordinary 

circumstances justifying further delay; (2) advises the court of the efforts counsel has expended 

in preparing the brief; and (3) provides the court reasonable assurance that the brief will be 

completed and filed by the requested extended deadline. The court does not generally consider a 

heavy workload to be an extraordinary circumstance.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of August, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00890-CV

Christopher James COLEMAN,

Appellant

v.

Dover 

DOVER MAINTENANCE ASS’N, INC.,

Appellee

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-01340

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE ANGELINI, AND JUSTICE BARNARD

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE. Costs of appeal are assessed against the party that incurred them.

SIGNED May 6, 2015.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Exhibit 35.1





Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.








This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 18, 2019 (the “Agreement”) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2019-3 (the “Trust”), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the “Servicer”) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith.  The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.





The undersigned certifies that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer.  I further certify as follows:





1. I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023, and its performance under the Agreement.





2. To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the fulfillment of any such obligation.








AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.





By:/s/ Connie CoffeyDated:March 4, 2024Connie CoffeyExecutive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer
October 15, 2015

Mr. Carl H. Gregory, Jr.

P.O. Box 181411

Coronado

, CA 92178

Dear Mr. Gregory :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your
request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We received your July 1, 2015, exemption request filed in Docket No

. FAA

- 2015

- 2657 , but
we are unable to process your request any further as a result of a discrepancy in your petition

. The name of the petitioner is inconsistent in your petition. For us to consider the request any
further, you must cla rify the name of the petitioner and resubmit a revise d petition to your

docket

.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information
within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notif ying you further.
If you have any questions

, you may call the 333 Information Line at (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/
Brittany Newton
Program Analyst, Airmen and
Airspace Rules Divisio n
§ 35.14 Separation of functions. ( a ) The investigating official, the reviewing official, and any employee or agent of the authority who takes part in investigating, preparing, or presenting a particular case may not, in such case or a factually related case— ( 1 ) Participate in the hearing as the ALJ;
( 2 ) Participate or advise in the initial decision or the review of the initial decision by the authority head, except as a witness or a representative in public proceedings; or
( 3 ) Make the collection of penalties and assessments under 31 U.S.C. 3806.
( b ) The ALJ shall not be responsible to, or subject to the supervision or direction of the investigating official or the reviewing official.
( c ) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, the representative for the Government may be employed anywhere in the authority, including in the offices of either the investigating official or the reviewing official.
#### Paul Cardy et al., Respondents, v Marcie L. Garretson, Respondent, and Frederick G. Stanley, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 185]

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint and cross claims against defendant Frederick G. Stanley dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for injuries sustained in a car accident as a result of the alleged negligence of defendants *1040Marcie L. Garretson and Frederick G. Stanley. Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of Stanley for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against him. In support of his motion, Stanley demonstrated, and plaintiffs and Garretson failed to controvert, that Stanley was proceeding properly in his own lane of travel when the Garretson vehicle spun out of control, crossed the centerline, and struck the Stanley vehicle and plaintiffs’ vehicle. Stanley “was not required to anticipate that [Garretson’s] vehicle, traveling in the opposite direction, would cross over into [his] lane of travel * * * and * * * speculation that [Stanley] might have done something to avoid the accident is insufficient to raise an issue of fact concerning” his fault *(Whitfield v Toense,*273 AD2d 877; *see, Tran v Nowak,*245 AD2d 1083; *Gouchie v Gill,*198 AD2d 862). Moreover, Stanley established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of causation, and plaintiffs and Garretson failed to raise a triable question of fact on that issue. Here, there was no contact between Stanley’s vehicle and plaintiffs’ vehicle, and no possibility that Stanley’s action or inaction caused the subsequent contact between Garretson’s vehicle and plaintiffs’ vehicle *(see, Wright v Morozinis,*220 AD2d 496, 497; *cf., Rodriguez v Schwartz,*257 AD2d 655; *Wenck v Zillioux,*246 AD2d 717, 717-718). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Kehoe and Law-ton, JJ.
### §300ee–34. Authorization of appropriations

#### (a) In general

For the purpose of carrying out sections 300ee–31 through 300ee–33 of this title, there are authorized to be appropriated $105,000,000 for fiscal year 1989 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1990 and 1991.

#### (b) Allocations

(1) Of the amounts appropriated pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary shall make available $45,000,000 to carry out section 300ee–32 of this title and $30,000,000 to carry out this part through financial assistance to minority entities for the provision of services to minority populations.

(2) After consultation with the Director of the Office of Minority Health and with the Indian Health Service, the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall, not later than 90 days after November 4, 1988, publish guidelines to provide procedures for applications for funding pursuant to paragraph (1) and for public comment.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXV, formerly title XV, §2524, as added Pub. L. 100–607, title II, §221, Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3103; amended Pub. L. 100–690, title II, §2619(i) [(j)], Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4244; renumbered title XXV, Pub. L. 101–93, §5(e)(1), Aug. 16, 1989, 103 Stat. 612; Pub. L. 102–531, title III, §312(d)(24), Oct. 27, 1992, 106 Stat. 3505.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1992—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 102–531 substituted "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention" for "Centers for Disease Control".

1988—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 100–690 substituted "the date of the enactment of the AIDS Amendments of 1988" for "the date of the enactment of this section", which for purposes of codification was translated as "November 4, 1988".

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

#### Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–690 effective immediately after enactment of Pub. L. 100–607, which was approved Nov. 4, 1988, see section 2600 of Pub. L. 100–690, set out as a note under section 242m of this title.
United States 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases.

 /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

NOTICE SETTING

STATUS CONFERENCE

The Court shall hold a status conference at 8:00 A.M. ON MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2010, in

Courtroom 9. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 614 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 1
### §3057k. "Native Hawaiian" defined

For the purpose of this part, the term "Native Hawaiian" means any individual any of whose ancestors were natives of the area which consists of the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778.

(Pub. L. 89–73, title VI, §625, as added Pub. L. 100–175, title I, §171, Nov. 29, 1987, 101 Stat. 963.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1987, except not applicable with respect to any area plan submitted under section 3026(a) of this title or any State plan submitted under section 3027(a) of this title and approved for any fiscal year beginning before Nov. 29, 1987, see section 701(a), (b) of Pub. L. 100–175, set out as an Effective Date of 1987 Amendment note under section 3001 of this title.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

IN RE: HAIXIA DENG, YONGBONG HAN, CHARAN MASARAPU, YOGESH KUMAR ANGUCHAMY, HERMAN A. LOPEZ, SUJEET KUMAR, Appellants

______________________

2022

- 1568

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 15/425,696.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

P ETER S. D ARDI

, Christensen Fonder Dardi & Herbert, PLLC, Maple Grove, MN, argued for appellants Haixia Deng, Yongbong Han, Charan Masarapu, Yogesh KumarAnguchamy, Herman A. Lopez, Sujeet Kumar. Also represented by D ONALD W. N ILES , Niles Law Office, P.A.

, Wadena, MN.

D ANIEL K AZHDAN

, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Katherine K. Vidal. Also represented by T HOMAS W. K RAUSE

, A MY J. N ELSON

, B RIAN R ACILLA

, F ARHEENA Y

ASMEEN R ASHEED

.

______________________ Case: 22-1568 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 03/07/2023T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (C HEN

, M AYER

, and H UGHES

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 7, 2023
Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court Case: 22-1568 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 03/07/2023
Exhibit 32

COMMUNITYCORP

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Vice President and Cashier of Communitycorp (the Company), each certify that, to his or
her knowledge on the date of this certification:



| | 1. | The quarterly report of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ W. Roger Crook                   
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | W. Roger Crook                       
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                      |  |  | 
|Date: August 12, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Gwendolyn P. Bunton              
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Gwendolyn P. Bunton                  
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Vice President and Cashier           



26
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 71 FR 34520 and 34521, June 15, 2006.

§ 40.82 Alien who departed the United States to avoid service in the armed forces. ( a ) *Applicability to immigrants.* INA 212(a)(8)(A) applies to immigrant visa applicants who have departed from or remained outside the United States between September 8, 1939 and September 24, 1978, to avoid or evade training or service in the United States Armed Forces.
( b ) *Applicability to nonimmigrants.* INA 212(a)(8)(B) applies to nonimmigrant visa applicants who have departed from or remained outside the United States between September 8, 1939 and September 24, 1978 to avoid or evade training or service in the U.S. Armed Forces except an alien who held nonimmigrant status at the time of such departure.
#### Wilfrid Pelletier, Respondent, v. Mildred Mooney, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Order, dated May 6,1960, denying defendant’s motion to open her default in answering the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion granted on condition that defendant-appellant within 20 days of the service of the order herein, with notice of entry thereof, pay the full costs and disbursements of the action to date, together with the costs and disbursements of this appeal, and together with a copy of her proposed answer, and on the further condition that defendant-appellant obtain the appearance or written consent to appearance of the codefendant John T. Carroll, and, otherwise, the order is affirmed, with costs to plaintiff-respondent. Defendant-appellant’s neglect is not so grave, nor was it of such persistence, as to justify preclusion absolutely of her right to defend the action. Settle order. Concur- — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Gordon Koch, Petitioner, v George Bulson, as Superintendent of Highways of the Town of Stony Point, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to review a determination of the respondent Town Board of the Town of Stony Point (sued herein as the town council), dated December 27, 1972, which, after a hearing, found that petitioner had absented himself from work, without explanation, for a period in excess of 10 working days and was, therefore, deemed to have resigned his position. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. Petitioner had an altercation with his superintendent on the evening of January 24, 1971. Petitioner failed to report to work thereafter and no communication was received from him until August of that year, at which time he commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement. Subsequently, the parties came before Mr. Justice Donohoe, who found that the matter came within the purview of section 75 of the Civil Service Law and directed respondents to (1) furnish petitioner with written notice of his removal and the reasons therefor and a copy of the charges preferred against him and (2) hold a hearing. On August 2, 1972 respondents notified petitioner that he had been absent without authorization for a period exceeding 10 working days and, pursuant to rule XX of the Rockland County Civil Service Commission, was deemed to have resigned. *626Petitioner was advised that he could answer the charge in writing and request a hearing. Such a hearing took place on September 6, 1972 before the town board. Petitioner’s explanation for his absence was that he thought he had been fired. Clearly, the town board failed to credit this explanation and, by a determination dated December 27, 1972, terminated petitioner’s services by reason of his unexplained absence. Thereafter, in April, 1973, petitioner commenced the instant proceeding for judicial review of the town board’s determination. The proceeding was transferred to this court. We find that petitioner was accorded all procedural and substantive rights guaranteed by section 75 of the Civil Service Law and that the determination of the town board was supported by substantial evidence. Although the charges against petitioner never used the word "misconduct” as such, it is clear that the allegations of unauthorized absence from work constituted charges of misconduct. A contrary holding, based upon the mere absence of the word "misconduct”, would elevate form over substance. Furthermore, petitioner was given a full administrative hearing at which he was represented by counsel, testified in his own behalf, called witnesses, and cross-examined adverse witnesses. No irrebuttable presumption that he had resigned was applied to petitioner in this case. In the light of all of the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner’s reliance upon *Matter of Johnson v Director, Downstate Med. Center, State Univ. of N. Y.*(52 AD2d 357) is misplaced. Margett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### Henby Kaisee et al., Respondents, v South Nassau Communities Hospital, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for per*644sonal injuries, etc., defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 27, 1976, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to direct it to produce a certain report prepared by one of its employees. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The accident report prepared herein by an employee for her employer in the regular course of business is not material prepared solely for litigation (see CPLR 3101, subd [d]). The report is subject to discovery (see *Weisgold v Kiamesha Concord,*51 Mise 2d 456; *Quirino v New York City Tr. Auth.,*60 Mise 2d 634). Latham, J.P., Shapiro, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur.