alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §6974. Petition for regulations; public participation

#### (a) Petition

Any person may petition the Administrator for the promulgation, amendment, or repeal of any regulation under this chapter. Within a reasonable time following receipt of such petition, the Administrator shall take action with respect to such petition and shall publish notice of such action in the Federal Register, together with the reasons therefor.

#### (b) Public participation

(1) Public participation in the development, revision, implementation, and enforcement of any regulation, guideline, information, or program under this chapter shall be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the Administrator and the States. The Administrator, in cooperation with the States, shall develop and publish minimum guidelines for public participation in such processes.

(2) Before the issuing of a permit to any person with any respect to any facility for the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous wastes under section 6925 of this title, the Administrator shall—

(A) cause to be published in major local newspapers of general circulation and broadcast over local radio stations notice of the agency's intention to issue such permit, and

(B) transmit in writing notice of the agency's intention to issue such permit to each unit of local government having jurisdiction over the area in which such facility is proposed to be located and to each State agency having any authority under State law with respect to the construction or operation of such facility.

If within 45 days the Administrator receives written notice of opposition to the agency's intention to issue such permit and a request for a hearing, or if the Administrator determines on his own initiative, he shall hold an informal public hearing (including an opportunity for presentation of written and oral views) on whether he should issue a permit for the proposed facility. Whenever possible the Administrator shall schedule such hearing at a location convenient to the nearest population center to such proposed facility and give notice in the aforementioned manner of the date, time, and subject matter of such hearing. No State program which provides for the issuance of permits referred to in this paragraph may be authorized by the Administrator under section 6926 of this title unless such program provides for the notice and hearing required by the paragraph.

(Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §7004, as added Pub. L. 94–580, §2, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2826; amended Pub. L. 96–482, §26, Oct. 21, 1980, 94 Stat. 2348.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1980—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 96–482 designated existing provisions as par. (1) and added par. (2).

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of certain enforcement functions of Administrator or other official of Environmental Protection Agency under this chapter to Federal Inspector, Office of Federal Inspector for the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System, and subsequent transfer to Secretary of Energy, then to Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects, see note set out under section 6903 of this title.
# %0%-IS ELECTRONIC RECORD
COA# 05-13-01186-CR 

### Andre D. Berryv. The State of 

### STYLE: Texas COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED OFFENSE: 22.01 

### COUNTY: Collin TRIAL COURT: 380th Judicial District Court DATE: 06/10/15 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 380-82821-2012



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS STYLE: Andre D. Berry v. The State ofTexas 

## PRO SE. Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# figyv^ 

# DATE: ///?j/^J/S' JUDGE: 

# S^ Uyt^ysYis* CCA#: 

# gat-/*" CCADisposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: PC:_ DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
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.                  

###### Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

# *Time and Date:*

10 a.m. (e.s.t.), December 20, 2004. 

# *Place:*

4th Floor Conference Room, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC. 

# *Status:*

Parts will be open to the public and parts closed to the public. 

# *Matters To Be Considered:*

 

## Parts Open to the Public 

1. Approval of the minutes of the November 15, 2004, Board member meeting. 

2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director. 

## Parts Closed to the Public 

3. Procurement. 

# CONTACT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640. 

Dated: December 8, 2004. 

Elizabeth S. Woodruff, 

Secretary to the Board, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. 

[FR Doc. 04-27302 Filed 12-8-04; 3:19 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

May 4, 2004

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, N.W


Washington, D.C. 20549


Ladies and Gentlemen:

The certification set forth below is being
submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for
the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. This
certification is not to be deemed filed pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and does not constitute a part
of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the
Report) accompanying this letter.

H. Wayne Huizenga, the Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of Boca Resorts, Inc., and Wayne Moor, the
Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of
Boca Resorts, Inc., each certifies that:



| |    |                                                                                                                                                                   
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | 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
    results of operations of Boca Resorts, Inc.



| |                                   
| | ----------------------------------
| | /s/ H. WAYNE HUIZENGA             
| |                                   
| | Name:        H.
    Wayne Huizenga
| | Chairman of the Board and         
| | Chief Executive Officer           
|
| | /s/ WAYNE MOOR                    
| |                                   
| | Name:        Wayne
    Moor       
| | Senior Vice President, Treasurer  
| | and Chief Financial Officer       

20
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:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Glenn/Colusa County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Willows, California. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Introductions, (2) Approval of Minutes, (3) Public Comment, (4) Update on Roads Analysis, (5) Web site Update, (6) Water Assessment on Stony Creek, (7) General Discussion, (8) Next Agenda.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on January 24, 2005, from 1:30 p.m. and end at approximately 4:30 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Mendocino National Forest Supervisor's Office, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988. Individuals wishing to speak or propose agenda items must send their names and proposals to Jim Giachino, DFO, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Bobbin Gaddini, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, P.O. Box 164, Elk Creek, CA 95939. (530) 968-5329; e-mail                         *ggaddini@fs.fed.us.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by January 21, 2005, will have the opportunity to address the Committee at those sessions.

Dated: December 21, 2004.

Robert McCabe,

Acting Designated Federal Official.

[FR Doc. 04-28305  Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 200.926a Residential building code comparison items. HUD will review each local and State code submitted under this subpart to determine whether it regulates all of the following areas and subareas: ( a ) *Fire Safety.* ( 1 ) Allowable height;
( 2 ) Fire separations;
( 3 ) Fire resistance requirements;
( 4 ) Egress doors and windows;
( 5 ) Unit smoke detectors;
( 6 ) Flame spread.
( b ) *Light and ventilation.* ( 1 ) Habitable rooms;
( 2 ) Bath and toilet rooms.
( c ) *Structural loads and seismic design.* ( 1 ) Design live loads;
( 2 ) Design dead loads;
( 3 ) Snow loads (for jurisdictions with snow loading conditions identified in Section 7 of ASCE-7-88 (formerly ANSI A58.1-82);
( 4 ) Wind loads;
( 5 ) Earthquake loads (for jurisdictions in seismic zones 3 or 4, as identified in Section 9 of ASCE-7-88 (formerly ANSI A58.1-82)).
( d ) *Foundation systems.* ( 1 ) Foundation depths;
( 2 ) Footings;
( 3 ) Foundation materials criteria.
( e ) *Materials standards.* ( 1 ) Materials standards.
( f ) *Construction components.* ( 1 ) Steel;
( 2 ) Masonry;
( 3 ) Concrete;
( 4 ) Lumber;
( 5 ) Roof construction and covering;
( 6 ) Chimneys and fireplaces.
( g ) *Glass.* ( 1 ) Thickness/area requirements;
( 2 ) Safety glazing.
( h ) *Mechanical.* ( 1 ) Heating, cooling and ventilation systems;
( 2 ) Gas, liquid and solid fuel piping and equipment;
( 3 ) Chimneys and vents;
( 4 ) Ventilation (air changes).
( i ) *Plumbing.* ( 1 ) Materials standards;
( 2 ) Sizing and installing drainage systems;
( 3 ) Vents and venting;
( 4 ) Traps;
( 5 ) Cleanouts;
( 6 ) Plumbing fixtures;
( 7 ) Water supply and distribution;
( 8 ) Sewage disposal systems.
( j ) *Electrical.* ( 1 ) Branch circuits;
( 2 ) Services;
( 3 ) Grounding;
( 4 ) Wiring methods;
( 5 ) Cable;
( 6 ) Conduit;
( 7 ) Outlets, switches and junction boxes;
( 8 ) Panelboards.
[50 FR 39594, Sept. 27, 1985, as amended at 59 FR 36695, July 19, 1994]
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 23 , 2015.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 15

- 00513

- CV

BENEDICT EMESOWUM , Appellant

V.

CHRISTMAS EVE MORGAN , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 4

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1061501

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from an order sustaining a contest to appellant’s affidavit of indigence. The clerk’s record was filed June 19, 2015. The record
reflect s that no final judgment has been entered in this case. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp ., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).
On July 3, 2015, notification was transmitt ed to the parties of this court’ s2

intention to dismiss the appeal for want o f jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response on or before July 14, 2015 , demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). On July 10, 2015, appellant filed a n “Amended Notice of Appeal and Statement on Jurisdiction,” in which he stated that he “prematurely filed a timely appeal of his denial of indigency by the trial court.” Appellant stated that the trial court issued a “final order” sustaining the

contest to his affidavit on July 7, 2015. Appellant states that he is appealing the trial court’s order sustaining a contest to his affidavit of indigence.
Appellant’s response fails to demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction over the appeal. There is no statutory grant of the right to immediately appeal, before entry of final judgment, the matter about which appellant complain s

. See, e.g ., Tex.
Civ. Prac. & Rem. C od e Ann. § 51.014; Kilsby v. Mid Century Ins. Co. of Texas , 14

- 07

- 00981

- CV, 2008 WL 889428, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 3, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order sustaining a contest to pauper’s oath when no final judgment had been entered)

. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Brown, and Wise.
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

NOVENDER FLEMING,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NADIA CLARK, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

VICTOR JONES,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NADIA CLARK, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C09-1613 BZ

and Consolidated Case

No. C09-4757 BZ

FOURTH DISCOVERY ORDER

Having read Mr. Johnson’s letter of March 12, 2010, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that all depositions be completed by March 26,

2010. The Court’s orders take precedence over the convenience

of counsel and witnesses. The parties are FURTHER ORDERED to

meet and confer on the record and cooperate in devising an

appropriate deposition schedule. If they are unsuccessful,

the party seeking court intervention shall notify the Court

Case 3:09-cv-01613-BZ Document 72 Filed 03/16/10 Page 1 of 2
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

and lodge the record of their meeting.

Dated: March 16, 2010

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\FLEMING v. CLARK\DISC ORD 4.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-01613-BZ Document 72 Filed 03/16/10 Page 2 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAVON HILL, JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC and DOES 1-

20,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 09-00235 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING ON MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

APRIL 9, 2010 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, with reference to pin cites and without argument or additional briefing. Cf.

N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to

explain their reliance on such authority. The Court suggests that associates or of counsel

attorneys who are working on this case be permitted to address some or all of the Court’s

questions contained herein.

Case 3:09-cv-00235-JSW Document 73 Filed 04/06/10 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

The parties shall each have 20 minutes to address the following questions:

1. Where – specifically – in the record are the following facts addressed or controverted?

a. Plaintiff can perform all of the essential functions of his former

employment with his left hand.

b. Plaintiff can perform all of the essential functions of his former

employment without using a brace.

c. Bayer engaged in an interactive process with Plaintiff after Dr. Chin

removed Plaintiff’s necessary restrictions.

2. Do the two reports from Dr. Chin create a disputed issue of fact regarding whether

Plaintiff was actually permanently disabled and unable to perform the essential functions

of his former employment?

3. How does Plaintiff respond to the analysis of Quinn v. City of Los Angeles, 84 Cal. App.

4th 472, 482-83 (2000), in which the court found that it was entirely within the

discretion of the employer to set physical criteria for the hiring process? Does Bayer

have unfettered discretion to set its standard operating procedures in compliance with

regulatory requirements?

4. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00235-JSW Document 73 Filed 04/06/10 Page 2 of 2
Order entered July 11, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00617-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF P.H., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 196th Judicial District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 89,795

ORDER

Before the Court is court reporter Judith F. Snyder’s July 8, 2022 second 

request for a ten-day extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT 

the request and ORDER the record be filed no later than July 21, 2022.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
Case 3:09-cv-00329-MMC Document 84 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 13
Case 3:09-cv-00329-MMC Document 84 Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 13
Case 3:09-cv-00329-MMC Document 84 Filed 01/29/10 Page 3 of 13
Case 3:09-cv-00329-MMC Document 84 Filed 01/29/10 Page 4 of 13
Case 3:09-cv-00329-MMC Document 84 Filed 01/29/10 Page 5 of 13
Case 3:09-cv-00329-MMC Document 84 Filed 01/29/10 Page 6 of 13
Case 3:09-cv-00329-MMC Document 84 Filed 01/29/10 Page 7 of 13
Case 3:09-cv-00329-MMC Document 84 Filed 01/29/10 Page 8 of 13
Case 3:09-cv-00329-MMC Document 84 Filed 01/29/10 Page 9 of 13
Case 3:09-cv-00329-MMC Document 84 Filed 01/29/10 Page 10 of 13
Case 3:09-cv-00329-MMC Document 84 Filed 01/29/10 Page 11 of 13
Case 3:09-cv-00329-MMC Document 84 Filed 01/29/10 Page 12 of 13
22 /s/

25 /s/

22 /s/

27

January 29, 2010

/s/

Case 3:09-cv-00329-MMC Document 84 Filed 01/29/10 Page 13 of 13
1 John T. B oyd, C hief J ustic e (R et.), Se ven th C ourt o f Ap pea ls, sitting b y ass ignm ent. T EX . G OV ' T

C ODE A NN . § 75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 200 5). NO. 07-03-0408-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL E JANUARY

11, 2006

______________________________ MILES E. and IR ENE BALDWIN, Appellants

v. ROBERT E. GARNER, individually, and TEMPLETON & GARNER, Appellees

_________________________________ FROM THE 108 TH DISTRIC T COURT O F POTT ER COUNTY; NO. 75,051-E; HON. VANN CULP, PRESIDING

________________________________ Memorandum Opinion

________________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., REAVIS, J. and BO YD, S.J. 1 Because I conclude the trial cour t erred in ho lding that the July 1, 1982 fee agreement was revocabl e in wholeor in part, I respectfully dissent to that

determination. In Archer v . Griffith, 390 S.W.2d 735, 739 (Tex. 1964) (citi ng Story , Equity Jurisprudence, 7th ed. 1857, s 311), after not ing the relationshi p between an attorney and2

client is highl y fiduciary

and that their dealings ar e subject to s cruti ny as a transactio n between a trustee and bene ficiary, the Court held as follows: [t]he burden of esta blishing i t s perfect fairness, ad equacy, and equity, is thro wn upon the a ttor ney, upon t he general rule, that he w ho bargains in a matte r of adva ntage with a person , placin g a confidence in him, is bound to sh ow that a reasonabl e use has been made of that confidence; a rul e app lyi ng equall y to all persons standing in confidential relation s with each other. Later, in Levine v. Bayne, Snell & Krause, Ltd., 40 S.W .3d 92, 95-96 (Tex. 2001), the Court adopted the Restatem ent (Thir d) of the Law G overning Lawyer s § 18, and held t hat because a lawyer ismore familiar w ith the intri cacies of leg al representat ion and wi th the law and drafting of fee ag reements, the bur den falls on the l awyer

to express

the terms of the payment of the fee. According t o t he agreement printed on the law firm letterhead, Baldwin sought Garner’s services to represent hi m in Texas toassist in retaking un identified proper ty and to “potentiall y” (1)

file a suit to set aside a forec losure and (2) sue Baldwi n’s former attorney for neglect and t he maker of various notes. The J uly 1, 198 2 fee agreement did not address a refund of the $20,000 pay men t or an y p art thereof if Garn er withdr ew from representing Baldwin. However, the agr ee me nt did prov ide that if Baldw in desired to terminate Garner’s s ervicesat any time, counsel would return t he $20,00 0 less amounts advanced for payment of costs, expenses, and fees earned at $125 per hour, upon req uest. Because the agreement di d not provi de the request for a refund could not be impl ied, and was silent as to an accounting for re paym ent if Garner w ithdrew fr om representati on,3

applying the principl es announced in Archer and Levine, I concludethe trial court erred in construing that the $20,000 pay ment was not r efundable, in wh ole or in par t.
Don H. Reavis Justice