alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
5349.7003 Notification of Anticipated

Terminations or Reductions

(b)(2)(i) The contracting officer must submit the draft notification through the SCO to the cognizant

HCA Workflow as soon as the proposed termination/reduction is known. The cognizant HCA will

forward the notification to SAF/AQ or SAF/SQ for signature (see MP5349).

Parent topic: Subpart 5349.70 – SPECIAL TERMINATION REQUIREMENTS
### In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06

- 0 9

- 00 0 69

- CR

______________________________

JAMES DIXON GRAVES, JR. , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 76th Judicial District Court

Morris County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10,004

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

J ames Dixon Graves, Jr.

, appeals from his convictions by a jury in this cause on two

charges of aggravated sexual assault of a disabled person. 1 Graves has filed a single brief in

which he raises issues common to all of his appeals. He argues that the trial court erred in

denyi ng the following : ( 1) his motion to suppress the evidence ; ( 2) his request for funds to hire an

expert ; ( 3) his request to have the victim examined by the expert as to her disability and

competency to testify ; and ( 4) his motion for mistrial. Graves also complains that the evidence

was insufficient to establish the victim was disabled under the Texas Penal Code.

We addressed these issues in detail in our opinion of this date on Graves ’ appeal in cause

number 06

- 09

- 000 63

- CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that error has not

been shown in this case.

We affirm the judgment.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: February 5, 2010

Date Decided: February 24 , 2010

Do Not Publish

1 Graves appeals from judgments entered in cause numbers 06

- 09

- 00063

- CR through 06

- 09

- 00070

- CR.
#### § 249b.102 Form TA-2,[1]
 form to be used by transfer agents registered pursuant to section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the annual report of transfer agent activities.

This form shall be used on an annual basis for registered transfer agents for reporting their business activities.

[51 FR 12134, Apr. 9, 1986, as amended at 73 FR 32228, June 5, 2008]

###### Editorial Note

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations affecting Form TA-2, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*

###### Footnotes -
  249b.102

[1] Copies of the form may be obtained from the Publication Section, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549 and from each of the Commission's regional offices.
### §300aa–4. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–362, title VI, §601(a)(1)(H), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3285

Section, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXI, §2104, as added Pub. L. 99–660, title III, §311(a), Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3757, related to national vaccine program report.

A prior section 300aa–4, act July 1, 1944, §2105, was repealed by Pub. L. 99–117, §12(f), Oct. 7, 1985, 99 Stat. 495. See section 300cc–4 of this title.

A prior section 2104 of act July 1, 1944, was renumbered section 2304 by Pub. L. 99–660 and classified to section 300cc–3 of this title, and was repealed by Pub. L. 98–621, §10(s), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3381.
#### Gordon *et al. v.*Fritts *et al.*

Lumpkin, J.

1. Under the pleadings and evidence, there was no abuse of discretion in granting an interlocutory injunction, subject to be dissolved on the giving of a bond by the defendant.

2. The demurrer was not heard or passed on as such. While on the interlocutory hearing it was considered with the other pleadings in determining whether an injunction should be granted, such grant was not a conclusive adjudication upon the demurrer.

*(a)*Inasmuch as there was no error in granting the interlocutory injunction based on the suit of a former wife, against her divorced hus*771band, to recover judgment on account of necessary expenditures made by her in supporting their minor children, and to enforce payment from an interest which he had in an unsettled estate, it would not necessarily make such grant erroneous if there was a misjoinder of parties 01-causes of action because she added to her petition a proceeding by helas next friend of the children, to require the father of such children to' furnish them with a support during their minority.

October 15, 1912.

Injunction. Before Judge Fite. Catoosa superior court. April 12, 1912.

*Maddox, McOamy & Shumate*and *Foust & Payne,*for plaintiffs in error.

*PL. P. Lumplcin, Baxter Smith,*and *Earl Jaclcson,*contra.

3. When an application for an interlocutory injunction came on to be heard at chambers in a county other than that in which the suit was brought, an oral motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was multifarious and included a misjoinder of parties and causes of action was not proper to be made and determined, and was correctly denied. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
### §3147. Grants for training, research, and technical assistance

#### (a) In general

#### (1) Grants

On the application of an eligible recipient, the Secretary may make grants for training, research, and technical assistance, including grants for program evaluation and economic impact analyses, that would be useful in alleviating or preventing conditions of excessive unemployment or underemployment.

#### (2) Types of assistance

Grants under paragraph (1) may be used for—

(A) project planning and feasibility studies;

(B) demonstrations of innovative activities or strategic economic development investments;

(C) management and operational assistance;

(D) establishment of university centers;

(E) establishment of business outreach centers;

(F) studies evaluating the needs of, and development potential for, economic growth of areas that the Secretary determines have substantial need for the assistance;

(G) studies that evaluate the effectiveness of coordinating projects funded under this chapter with projects funded under other Acts;

(H) assessment, marketing, and establishment of business clusters; and

(I) other activities determined by the Secretary to be appropriate.

#### (3) Cooperation requirement

In the case of a project assisted under this section that is national or regional in scope, the Secretary may waive the provision in section 3122(4)(A)(vi) of this title requiring a nonprofit organization or association to act in cooperation with officials of a political subdivision of a State.

#### (b) Methods of provision of assistance

In providing research and technical assistance under this section, the Secretary, in addition to making grants under subsection (a), may—

(1) provide research and technical assistance through officers or employees of the Department;

(2) pay funds made available to carry out this section to Federal agencies; or

(3) employ private individuals, partnerships, businesses, corporations, or appropriate institutions under contracts entered into for that purpose.

(Pub. L. 89–136, title II, §207, as added Pub. L. 105–393, title I, §102(a), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3604; amended Pub. L. 108–373, title II, §205, Oct. 27, 2004, 118 Stat. 1761.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Subsec. (a)(2)(G) to (I). Pub. L. 108–373, §205(a), added subpars. (G) and (H) and redesignated former subpar. (G) as (I).

Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 108–373, §205(b), added par. (3) and struck out heading and text of former par. (3). Text read as follows: "In the case of a project assisted under this section, the Secretary may reduce or waive the non-Federal share, without regard to section 3144 or 3145 of this title, if the Secretary finds that the project is not feasible without, and merits, such a reduction or waiver."

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Feb. 11, 1999, see section 105 of Pub. L. 105–393, set out as a note under section 3121 of this title.
#### § 35.25 Fees.

The party requesting a subpoena shall pay the cost of the fees and mileage of any witness subpoenaed in the amounts that would be payable to a witness in a proceeding in United States District Court. A check for witness fees and mileage shall accompany the subpoena when served, except that when a subpoena is issued on behalf of the authority, a check for witness fees and mileage need not accompany the subpoena.
October 15, 2015

Mr. Mark Kline

206 Northwest Benjamin Drive

Ankeny, IA 50023

Dear Mr. Kline:

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 cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request, posted to the public docket on July 24, 2015, and filed in 

Docket No. FAA−2015−3184, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your 

petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider 

the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.
2

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 notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIELLE POLLAR, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

)))))))))))

No. C08-4196 BZ

CONDITIONAL ORDER OFDISMISSAL

The parties to this matter having advised the Court that

they have agreed to a settlement, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and all scheduled

matters are VACATED; provided, however, that any party may,

within 60 days of the date of this Order, move the Court to

restore this matter to the calendar on the grounds that the

settlement has not been consummated.

Dated: April 15, 2010

    Bernard Zimmerman 

  United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\POLLAR V. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA\ORDER OF CONDITIONALDISMISSAL.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-04196-BZ   Document 98   Filed 04/15/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-08T14:59:03-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
§ 35.9 Answer. ( a ) The defendant may request a hearing by filing an answer with the reviewing official within 30 days of service of the complaint. An answer shall be deemed to be a request for hearing.
( b ) In the answer, the defendant— ( 1 ) Shall admit or deny each of the allegations of liability made in the complaint;
( 2 ) Shall state any defense on which the defendant intends to rely;
( 3 ) May state any reasons why the defendant contends that the penalties and assessments should be less than the statutory maximum; and
( 4 ) Shall state the name, address and telephone number of the person authorized by the defendant to act as defendant's representative, if any.
( c ) If the defendant is unable to file an answer meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section within the time provided, the defendant may, before the expiration of 30 days from service of the complaint, file with the reviewing official a general answer denying liability and requesting a hearing, and a request for an extension of time within which to file an answer meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section. The reviewing official shall file promptly with the ALJ the complaint, the general answer denying liability, and the request for an extension of time as provided in § 35.10. For good cause shown, the ALJ may grant the defendant up to 30 additional days within which to file an answer meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.
#### § 511.3 Exceptions.

Claims not compensable hereunder are listed in 2680 of the Act with the exception that 2680(k) (claims arising in a foreign country) has been removed by 22 U.S.C. 1474(5).

[44 FR 16374, Mar. 19, 1979]
### §3733. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3733 was editorially reclassified as section 10133 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
###### Editorial Note on Part 218

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 218 appear at 68 FR 51363, Aug. 26, 2003.

#### § 218.22 Notice to subrecipients.

Where a recipient passes on Federal financial assistance from an agency to subrecipients, the recipient shall provide the subrecipients written notice to their obligations under these regulations.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2465 

To suspend temporarily the duty on woven fabric containing vicuna hair. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2005 

Mr. SIMMONS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on woven fabric containing 

vicuna hair. 

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

3 SECTION 1. WOVEN FABRIC OF VICUNA HAIR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.42.02 Woven fabric containing 85 

percent or more by weight of 

vicuna hair (provided for in 

subheadings 5111.11.70, 

5111.19.60, 5112.11.60, or 

5112.19.95) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 2465 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### § 130.4 Defense articles and defense services.

*Defense articles and defense services* have the meaning given those terms in paragraphs (3), (4) and (7) of section 47 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2794 (3), (4), and (7)). When used with reference to commercial sales, the definitions in §§ 120.31 and 120.32 of this subchapter apply.

[58 FR 39323, July 22, 1993, as amended at 87 FR 16426, Mar. 23, 2022]
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

MIGUEL CASTANEDA, KATHERINE

CORBETT, and JOSEPH WELLNER on

behalf of themselves and others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BURGER KING CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-4262 WHA

ORDER REGARDING

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

Separate trials have been scheduled for each of the ten certified classes in this matter. 

The first trial — for the class of patrons of the store located at 6021 Central Avenue, in El

Cerrito — is scheduled to begin on April 19, 2010. Motions for summary judgment by

plaintiffs and defendant regarding the first trial only are scheduled for hearing on March 18,

2010.

On February 10, 2010, the Court of Appeals granted plaintiff’s petition for permission to

appeal the order in this matter granting in part and denying in part class action certification. 

Plaintiffs contend on appeal that the class certification order in this matter erred by rejecting a

single class across all 96 restaurants leased by defendant Burger King Corporation in California,

and instead certified a separate class for each of the ten restaurants visited by named plaintiffs. 

Plaintiffs also contend that the order erred by finding that plaintiffs’ claims for damages

predominated over their claims for injunctive relief and therefore certified the classes under

Case 3:08-cv-04262-WHA Document 306 Filed 02/16/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Rule 23(b)(3) instead of Rule 23(b)(2). The written input of the parties is requested by

FEBRUARY 19, 2010, AT NOON, regarding whether a stay of this matter is appropriate while this

interlocutory appeal is pending. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-04262-WHA Document 306 Filed 02/16/10 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                              97
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,290
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     25,141
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,277
<PP&E>                                         224,773
<DEPRECIATION>                                  55,987
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 486,692
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,295
<BONDS>                                        225,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,162
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,672
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   486,692
<SALES>                                        100,026
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               100,026
<CGS>                                           80,276
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   90,283
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,415
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,015
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,360
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       655
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### §3783. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3783 was editorially reclassified as section 10222 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
BURKE, WILLIAMS &

SORENSEN, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

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 

LA #4821-8810-3173 v1 - 1 - [PROPOSED] ORDER OF FINAL 

JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL 

DAVID R. MARKHAM (SBN 071814) Email: dmarkham@clarkmarkham.com 

R. CRAIG CLARK (SBN 129912) 

Email: cclark@clarkmarkham,com 

JAMES TREGLIO (SBN 228077) 

Email: jtreglio@clarkmarkham.com 

CLARK & MARKHAM LLP 

600 B. Street, Suite 2130 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Tel: 619.239.1321 Fax: 619.239.5888 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Bonnie Scott and 

Putative Class 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BONNIE SCOTT, an individual, on 

behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PRO'S CHOICE BEAUTY CARE, 

INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. C08-4697-WHA 

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF FINAL 

JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL 

PURSUANT TO FRCP 41(a)(2) 

Hearing Date: 1/21/10 

Time: 8:00 a.m. 

Courtroom: 9 

Judge: The Hon. William H. Alsup 

Case 3:08-cv-04697-WHA Document 58 Filed 02/10/10 Page 1 of 2
BURKE, WILLIAMS &

SORENSEN, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

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 

LA #4821-8810-3173 v1 - 2 - [PROPOSED] ORDER OF FINAL 

JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL 

Pursuant to Plaintiff’s Request for Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) and for good cause shown, the Court makes the following 

Order: 

Final Judgment is hereby entered and this case is hereby dismissed with 

prejudice. Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, the Court 

retains jurisdiction of all matters relating to the interpretation, administration, 

implementation, effectuation and enforcement of the Settlement herein. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: February __, 2010 

 _______________________________________ 

 The Honorable William H. Alsup 

10 *

* The undersigned will only retain jurisdiction for three years.

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:08-cv-04697-WHA Document 58 Filed 02/10/10 Page 2 of 2
#### § 18.12 Motions and requests.

Motions and requests, including requests to intervene, may be filed with the Director General.
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4367 

AN ACT 

To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to limit the 

fee disclosure requirement for an automatic teller machine to the screen of that machine. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4367 EH

1 SECTION 1. FEE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT. 

2 Section 904(d)(3)(B) of the Consumer Credit Protec3 tion Act (15 U.S.C. 1693b(d)(3)(B)) (commonly known 

4 as the ‘‘Electronic Fund Transfer Act’’) is amended— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘REQUIREMENTS.’’ and all that 

6 follows through ‘‘The notice required under clauses 

7 (i) and (ii)’’ and inserting ‘‘REQUIREMENT.—The 

8 notice required under clauses (i) and (ii)’’ after 

9 ‘‘NOTICE’’; and 

10 (2) by striking ‘‘, except that during the period 

11 beginning’’ and all that follows and inserting a pe12 riod. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 9, 2012. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4367 

AN ACT 

To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to 

chine. matic teller machine to the screen of that malimit the fee disclosure requirement for an auto-
Case 3:08-cv-03137-SI Document 160 Filed 02/03/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:08-cv-03137-SI Document 160 Filed 02/03/10 Page 2 of 3
 3

Case 3:08-cv-03137-SI Document 160 Filed 02/03/10 Page 3 of 3