alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-08-0362-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	JUNE 2, 2009

	______________________________

	In the Interest of A.J.B. and A.K.B., Children 

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 237th DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 93-543,112; HON. JAY GIBSON, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	Memorandum Opinion

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	Mark David Bural appeals from a judgment awarding the Office of the Attorney General $86,301.96, a sum representing the amount of child support he failed to pay.  Through one issue, he asserts that because he continued to live with the mother of his children for nine years after the divorce and provided some physical and economic assistance, he should be allowed an offset.  We disagree and affirm the judgment.

	Normally, a trial court cannot reduce or modify the amount of child support arrearage.  Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §157.262(a) (Vernon 2008).  There are exceptions, such as when the obligee voluntarily relinquished actual possession and control of the child to the obligor for a time in excess of that specified in the custody/possession order.  Id.  §157.008(a) & (b).  Additionally, the sum owed may be subject to a counterclaim or offset.  Id.  §157.262(f).  Regarding the former, no one contends that the obligee (i.e. the children’s mother) voluntarily relinquished possession or control of the children to Bural as required by the statute.  So, it is of no benefit to Bural here.

	As for the latter, Bural cites us to no evidence of the amount allegedly comprising his offset.  This is problematic because the evidence of record illustrated that the obligee supported the children.  And, according to authority, where the obligor was not the sole source of support, it is encumbent upon him to provide some evidence of the amount of support actually paid.  Pedregon v.  Sanchez, 234 S.W.3d 90, 95-96 (Tex. App.–El Paso 2007, no pet.); compare Hall v. Hall, No. 09-06-206-CV, 2007 Tex. App.  Lexis 5883 at *6-7 (Tex. App.–Beaumont July 26, 2007, no pet.) (holding that the father was entitled to an offset for the time that he continued to live with his former spouse because the record showed a voluntary relinquishment of custody in excess of any court-ordered periods  and he provided the court with documentation of the sums he paid to support the child).  Simply put, without an amount to offset, there can be no offset.

	We further note that an offset or setoff is an affirmative defense.  Brown v. American Transfer & Storage Co., 601 S.W.2d 931, 936 (Tex. 1980).  As such, the party asserting it has the burden of pleading the matter.  Id.  Our review of the record uncovered no pleading of Bural wherein he raised it.  Thus, the affirmative defense was waived.

	Accordingly, the issue is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

							Brian Quinn

						          Chief Justice
SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO ANALYTICAL TOOLS 

1) LCC Spreadsheet: 

The new version fixed the double counting of discounting of existing GWH and CAC equipment that has 

remaining lifetime. The issue was corrected by linking cells AB42, AB43 and AB44 in "NWGF Switching" 

worksheet to the cells AD10, AD11 and AD8 respectively in the "Prod Price" worksheet.

2) NIA Spreadsheet: 

Updated the LCC outputs to reflect the LCC spreadsheet change described above. In addition, corrected 

the formula that calculates the base case shipments used in the switching calculations in the NWGF 

worksheet (column IB). In the previously published spreadsheet, it was linked to column CK 

(Replacement Units), whereas in the updated spreadsheet it is linked to column CL (Replacement & 

Switching Units) instead.

3) GRIM Spreadsheet: 

Shipment inputs were updated to be consistent with the revised values in the NIA.
### §46. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, which related to relocation of physicians and dentists, was from the First Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Act, 1944, act Dec. 23, 1943, ch. 380, title I, §101, 57 Stat. 617, and was not repeated in subsequent appropriation acts.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 75346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27548]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--International Electrotechnical Commission 
Technical Committee Subcommittee 15C

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 17, 2004, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), International 
Electrotechnical Commission Technical Committee Subcommittee 15C (``IEC 
TC SC 15C''), by its Secretariat, National Electrical Manufacturers 
Association (``NEMA''), has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
(1) the name and principal place of business of the standards 
development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards 
development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: International 
Electrotechnical Commission Technical Committee Subcommittee 15C, 
Rosslyn, VA. The nature and scope of IEC TC SC 15C's standards 
development activities are: Related to international specifications for 
electrical insulation. The standards of IEC TC SC 15C are IEC Standards 
developed pursuant to ``ISO/IEC Directives Part 1: Procedures for the 
Technical Work'' and are published by NEMA.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-27548 Filed 12-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Alex Weissman, Respondent, v Bowe, Walsh & Associates et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed January 20, 1977. The claimant sustained an injury to his right eye and it is undisputed that the injury was compensable and resulted in a 100% loss of use of the eye without corrective devices. A schedule award for 100% loss of vision of the eye and for facial disfigurement was made by a referee. The appellants contend that the award was "premature” because they would submit further medical evidence and/or further testimony by the claimant as to whether or not he could wear a contact lens. Substantial evidence supports the finding of the board that the "claimant cannot wear contact lens” and the board’s implicit rejection of the carrier’s suggestion that there be further proceedings is not arbitrary and capricious. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Greenblott, J. P., Main, Larkin, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 20465 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
KHOSROW AFGHAHI , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CR

- 204

- 2

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Khosrow Afghahi appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to revoke his pretrial detention order. The district court determined that Afghahi’s case involves a serious risk of flight and that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonabl y assure his appearance if he is released. 18 U.S.C. § § 3142 (e)

- (g ) , 3145(b)

.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 21, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-20465 Document: 00513315394 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2015No. 15

- 20465

2 Absent an error of law, we must uphold a district court ’ s pretrial detention order if it is supported by the proceedings below, a deferential standard of review that we have e quate d to the abuse

- of

- discretion standard

. United States v. Hare , 873 F.2d 796, 798 (5th Cir. 1989) . The same standard

governs our review of the denial of a § 3145(b) motion to revoke a detention order. Id. We generally look to whether “ the evidence a s a whole supports the conclusions of the pro ceedings” in the district court, United States v. Rueben , 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992), although we review questions of law de novo, United States v. Olis , 450 F.3d 583, 585 (5th Cir. 2006). Afghahi argues that the district court applied incorrect legal standards

. W e disagree. The district court repeatedly articulated and applied the correct statutory standard s

. See § 3142(e)

- (f). Any error in the district court’s consideration of “community ties” to Houston, Texas, or the best interests of Afghahi’s proposed sureties was harmless as the court found that Afghahi lacks ties to the United States and that the proposed sureties would not be effective in reasonably assuring his appearance

. See F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 52(a). I n light of the statutory factors, see § 3142(g), “the evidence as a whole supports the conclusions of the proceedings, ” Rueben , 974 F.2d at 586. AFFIRMED. Case: 15-20465 Document: 00513315394 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2015
#### In the Matter of Jaidan Industries, Inc., Respondent, v M.A. Angeliades, Inc., Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 683]

—In a proceeding to confirm an. arbitration award, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), entered November 9, 1999, which, upon granting the petition to confirm the award and denying the cross motion to vacate the award, is in favor of the petitioner, *inter alia,*in the principal sum of $166,673.09, including an award of $78,000 for the design and engineering of new aluminum windows.

*238Ordered that the order and judgment is modified, on the law, by (1) deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the application to confirm so much of the award of $166,673.09 as awarded $78,000 for the design and engineering of new aluminum windows and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the application, (2) deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the cross motion which was to vacate the award of $78,000 and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the cross motion, and (3) deleting the principal sum of $166,673.09 and substituting therefor an award in the principal sum of $88,673.09; as so modified, the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for entry of an appropriate amended judgment.

It is undisputed that the petitioner was not licensed to perform architectural and engineering services. Accordingly, on its face, the arbitrator’s award of $78,000 for the stated purpose of “[d]esign and engineering new aluminum windows” violated public policy *(see, Charlebois v Weller Assocs.,*72 NY2d 587; *Matter of Hirsch Constr. Co. [Anderson],*180 AD2d 604).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010 | AGENDA 

## FUTURE OF AVIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, WESTERN PACIFIC REGION, LAWNDALE, CALIFORNIA



# AGENDA

7:15

‐ 8:30 AM REGISTRATION

8:30 AM WELCOMING REMARKS; INTRODUCTION OF FAAC MEMBERS

9:00 AM WORKFORCE/LABOR

 Subcommittee report

‐ out

 Public Comments

 Committee Discussion

10:15 AM BREAK

10:30 AM FINANCING

 Subcommittee report

‐ out

 Public Comments

 Committee Discussion

11:45 AM LUNCH

12:30 PM COMPETITION

 Subcommittee report

‐ out

 Public Comments

 Committee DiscussionWednesday, October 20, 2010 | AGENDA 

## FUTURE OF AVIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, WESTERN PACIFIC REGION, LAWNDALE, CALIFORNIA



# AGENDA

1:45 PM ENVIRONMENT

 Subcommittee report

‐ out

 Public Comments

 Committee Discussion

2:45 PM BREAK

3:00 PM SAFETY

 Subcommittee report

‐ out

 Public Comments

 Committee Discussion

4:15 PM CLOSING REMARKS

4:30 PM ADJOURN
§ 72.26 Vesting of personal estate in United States. ( a ) If no claimant with a legal right to the personal estate comes forward within the period of five fiscal years beginning on October 1 after the consular officer took possession of the personal estate, title to the personal estate shall be conveyed to the United States, the property in the estate shall be under the custody of the Department, and the Department may dispose of the estate under as if it were surplus United States Government-owned property under title II of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 4811 *et seq.* or by such means as may be appropriate as determined by Department in its discretion in light of the nature and value of the property involved. The expenses of sales shall be paid from the estate, and any lawful claim received thereafter shall be payable to the extent of the value of the net proceeds of the estate as a refund from the appropriate Treasury appropriations account.
( b ) The net cash estate shall be transferred to the miscellaneous receipts account of the Treasury of the United States.
APPENDIX K: SECTION 106 MOA 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Georgetown University Boathouse 

Environmental Assessment 

April 2006
### §5204c. Hazard mitigation for insular areas

The total of contributions under the last sentence of section 5170c of this title for the insular areas shall not exceed 10 percent of the estimated aggregate amounts of grants to be made under sections 5170b, 5172, 5173, 5174, and 5178 1 of this title for any disaster: Provided, That the President shall require a 50 percent local match for assistance in excess of 10 percent of the estimated aggregate amount of grants to be made under section 5172 of this title for any disaster.

(Pub. L. 102–247, title II, §204, Feb. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 38.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 5178 of this title, referred to in text, was repealed by Pub. L. 106–390, title II, §206(c), Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1571, effective 18 months after Oct. 30, 2000.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Omnibus Insular Areas Act of 1992, and not as part of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act which comprises this chapter.

1 See References in Text note below.
### §300gg–43. Certification of coverage

The provisions of section 2701(e) 1 shall apply to health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer in the individual market in the same manner as it applies to health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer in connection with a group health plan in the small or large group market.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXVII, §2743, as added Pub. L. 104–191, title I, §111(a), Aug. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 1983.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 2701 of this Act, referred to in text, is a reference to section 2701 of act July 1, 1944. Section 2701, which was classified to section 300gg of this title, was renumbered section 2704, effective for plan years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2014, with certain exceptions, and amended, by Pub. L. 111–148, title I, §§1201(2), 1563(c)(1), formerly §1562(c)(1), title X, §10107(b)(1), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 154, 264, 911, and was transferred to section 300gg–3 of this title. A new section 2701 of act July 1, 1944, related to fair health insurance premiums, was added, effective for plan years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2014, and amended, by Pub. L. 111–148, title I, §1201(4), title X, §10103(a), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 155, 892, and is classified to section 300gg of this title.

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable with respect to health insurance coverage offered, sold, issued, renewed, in effect, or operated in the individual market after June 30, 1997, regardless of when a period of creditable coverage occurs, and provisions of section 102(c)(2) of Pub. L. 104–191, set out as a note under section 300gg of this title, applicable to this section in the same manner as it applies to section 300gg(e) of this title, see section 111(b) of Pub. L. 104–191, set out as a note under section 300gg–41 of this title.

1 See References in Text note below.
#### In the Matter of Galbreath Corporation, Appellant-Respondent, v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, Respondent-Appellant.

Final order, entered on July 16, 1958, reducing the assessments on the petitioner’s real property for the years 1954—55, 1955-56 and 1956-57 unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
### §§2689f to 2689h. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §902(e)(2)(B), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 560

Section 2689f, Pub. L. 88–164, title II, §211, as added Pub. L. 94–63, title III, §303, July 29, 1975, 89 Stat. 321; amended Pub. L. 95–622, title I, §110(a), Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3420, set forth eligibility requirements for financial distress grants for operation of centers.

Section 2689g, Pub. L. 88–164, title II, §212, as added Pub. L. 94–63, title III, §303, July 29, 1975, 89 Stat. 321; amended Pub. L. 95–622, title I, §102(e), Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3412; Pub. L. 96–398, title VII, §701(d)(2), Oct. 7, 1980, 94 Stat. 1605, related to general requirements for grants.

Section 2689h, Pub. L. 88–164, title II, §213, as added Pub. L. 94–63, title III, §303, July 29, 1975, 89 Stat. 322; amended Pub. L. 95–83, title III, §308(e), Aug. 1, 1977, 91 Stat. 396; Pub. L. 95–622, title I, §102(f), Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3412; Pub. L. 96–398, title VII, §701(d)(1), Oct. 7, 1980, 94 Stat. 1605, set forth authorization of appropriations.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1981, see section 902(h) of Pub. L. 97–35, set out as an Effective Date of 1981 Amendment note under section 238l of this title.
§ 313.3 Public access to guidance documents. The Agency, whenever it issues a guidance document as defined in this part, shall: ( a ) Ensure it is identified by the document's title and date of issuance or revision and is placed on its website within a single, searchable, indexed database, and available to the public;
( b ) Note on an Agency website that guidance documents lack the force and effect of law, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract;
( c ) Maintain and advertise on an Agency website a means for the public to comment electronically on guidance documents that are subject to the notice-and-comment procedures and to submit requests electronically for issuance, reconsideration, modification, or rescission of guidance documents in accordance with § 313.6; and
( d ) Designate the Office of the General Counsel to receive and address any complaints from the public that the Agency is not following the requirements of E.O 13891, entitled “Promoting the Rule of Law through Improved Agency Guidance Documents” (October 9, 2019), or is improperly treating a guidance document as a binding requirement.
### §300w–8. Criminal penalty for false statements

Whoever—

(1) knowingly and willfully makes or causes to be made any false statement or representation of a material fact in connection with the furnishing of items or services for which payment may be made by a State from funds allotted to the State under this part, or

(2) having knowledge of the occurrence of any event affecting his initial or continued right to any such payment conceals or fails to disclose such event with an intent fraudulently to secure such payment either in a greater amount than is due or when no such payment is authorized,

shall be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XIX, §1909, as added Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §901, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 542.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1981, see section 901 of Pub. L. 97–35, set out in part as a note under section 300w of this title.
Editorial Note on Part 218
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 218 appear at 68 FR 51363, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 218.32 Complaints. ( a ) Any person, individually or as a member of a class or on behalf of others, may file a complaint with an agency, alleging discrimination prohibited by these regulations based on an action occurring on or after July 1, 1979. A complainant shall file a complaint within 180 days from the date the complainant first had knowledge of the alleged act of discrimination. However, for good cause shown, the agency may extend this time limit.
( b ) The agency will attempt to facilitate the filing of complaints wherever possible, including taking the following measures: ( 1 ) Accepting as a sufficient complaint, any written statement which identifies the parties involved, describes generally the action or practice complained of, and is signed by the complainant.
( 2 ) Freely permitting a complainant to add information to the complaint to meet the requirements of a sufficient complaint.
( 3 ) Widely disseminating information regarding the obligations of recipients under the Act and these regulations.
( 4 ) Notifying the complainant and the recipient of their rights under the complaint procedure, including the right to have a representative at all stages of the complaint process.
( 5 ) Notifying the complainant and the recipient (or their representatives) of their right to contact the agency for information and assistance regarding the complaint resolution process.
( c ) The agency will return to the complainant any complaint outside the jurisdiction of these regulations and will state the reason(s) why it is outside the jurisdiction of these regulations.
§ 1411.8 Extension of time limits. In unusual circumstances as specified in this section, the time limits prescribed with respect to initial determinations or determinations on appeal may be extended by written notice from the officer handling the request (either initial or on appeal) to the person making such request setting forth the reasons for such extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched. No such notice shall specify a date that would result in a total extension of more than ten (10) working days. As used in this section, “unusual circumstances” means, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular request: ( a ) The need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request;
( b ) The need to search for, collect and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records which are demanded in a single request; or
( c ) The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject matter interest therein.