alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Advisory Committee to the Director, National Institutes of Health, December 10, 12:00 p.m. to December 11, 05:00 p.m. National Institutes of Health, Building 1, Wilson Hall, 1 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 (Virtual Meeting) which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on 11/30/2020, 85 FR 76590.                

The meeting notice is amended to change the meeting start time on December 10, 2020 from 12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.

Dated: December 4, 2020.

Natasha M. Copeland,

Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2020-27055 Filed 12-8-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OC TOBER 15, 2013

NO. 03

- 13

- 00070

- CV

Terracon Consultants, Inc., Appellant

v.

Fort Worth Design & Build, Inc. d/b/a DB Constructors, Inc., Appellee

APPEAL FROM 277TH DISTRICT CO URT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON AND ROSE

DISMISSED JOINT MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

THIS DAY came on to be submitted to this Court the parties ’ joint motion to dismiss the appeal

in the above cause, and the Court ha ving fully considered said motion, and being of the opinion

that same should be granted: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that said

motion is granted, and that the appeal is dismissed. It is FURTHER ordered that each party p ay

the costs o f appeal incurred by that party ; and that this decision be certified below for

observance.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Jamison, Also Known as James Jamieson, Also Known as Daniel Jamieson, Also Known as George Storfs, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered February 2,1975 (the date on the clerk’s extract is February 4, 1975), convicting him of rape in the first degree, kidnapping in the second degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, robbery in the third degree (two counts), grand larceny in the third degree (two counts), sexual misconduct, and unlawful imprisonment, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment modified, on the law, by reversing the convictions of sexual abuse in the first degree, sexual misconduct, grand larceny in the third degree and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, and the sentences imposed thereon, and the counts upon which such convictions are based are dismissed. As so modified, judgment affirmed. The People concede that the convictions which we have reversed should have been dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of rape in the first degree, kidnapping in the second degree and robbery in the third degree, of which crimes defendant was also convicted. Suozzi, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0509

CITY OF KALISPELL,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MICHELLE SQUIER RAVE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 21, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 11 2022

10/11/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0509
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3292 

To extend the duty suspension on pro-jet black 263 stage. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 14, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the duty suspension on pro-jet black 263 stage. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PRO-JET BLACK 263 STAGE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.03.09 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amend6 ed— 

7 (1) by striking the article description and in8 serting ‘‘[[Substituted naphthalenylazol] alkoxyl 

9 phenyl azo] carboxyphenylene, lithium salt (PMN 

10 No. P–00–351) (provided for in subheading 

11 3204.14.30)’’; and 
2 

•HR 3292 IH 

1 (2) by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 subsection (a) apply to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

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

6 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 23, 2020

No. 04-20-00427-CV

IN RE Gustavo GARCIA-SILLER, Archbishop of the Archdiocese of San Antonio, and Acting 

on Behalf of the Archdiocese of San Antonio, and Anita Valencia, as Independent Administrator 

of the Estate of Virgilio Elizondo

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

On August 31, 2020, relators, Gustavo Garcia-Siller, Archbishop of the Archdiocese of 

San Antonio, and Acting on Behalf of the Archdiocese of San Antonio, and Anita Valencia, as 

Independent Administrator of the Estate of Virgilio Elizondo, filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus. After consideration, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a). 

It is so ORDERED on September 23, 2020.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

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

court on this 23rd day of September, 2020.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2015-CI-08589, styled John Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San 

Antonio, by and through the Apostolic Administrator and Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Siller and Archbishop Emeritus 

Patrick Flores, their predecessors and successors, as Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Antonio, 

Father Jesus Armando Dominguez, the Estate of Father Virgilio Elizondo, Deceased; Bishop Gerald R. Barnes, his 

predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Diocese of San Bernardino, in its assumed or common name; the Roman 

Catholic Bishop of San Bernardino, a Corporate sole aka Diocese of San Bernardino, pending in the 131st Judicial 

District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Karen H. Pozza presiding.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION1350)**

 

I, Michael Black, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual reporton Form 10-K of Cambridge Display Technology, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have: 

 

a) designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 2, 2005
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3457

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for World War II veterans 

to be in the same priority category for health care services from the 

Department of Veterans Affairs as World War I veterans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2005

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

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for World 

War II veterans to be in the same priority category 

for health care services from the Department of Veterans 

Affairs as World War I veterans.

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

•HR 3457 IH 

1 SECTION 1. PRIORITY CATEGORY FOR DEPARTMENT OF 

2 VETERANS AFFAIRS HEALTH CARE SERVICES 

3 FOR WORLD WAR II VETERANS. 

4 Section 1710(a)(2)(E) of title 38, United States 

5 Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘or World War II’’ after 

6 ‘‘World War I’’.

Æ
#### Michael Donohue, Appellant, v. Warren H. Tompkins et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, a passenger in an automobile owned and operated by defendant Warren H. Tompkins, as a result of its collision with an automobile operated by defendant Ott and owned by defendant Lockwood, Kessler *&*Bartlett, Inc., the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered October 10, 1961 on a jury’s verdict after trial, dismissing the complaint as against the defendants Warren H. Tompkins and William M. Tompkins, Inc. With respect to the other defendants, the action had been settled upon a conditional release; and the trial had proceeded against the two Tompkins defendants only. Judgment affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.
### §15701. Providing transportation and service

(a) Service on Reasonable Request.—A pipeline carrier providing transportation or service under this part shall provide the transportation or service on reasonable request.

(b) Rates and Other Terms.—A pipeline carrier shall also provide to any person, on request, the carrier's rates and other service terms. The response by a pipeline carrier to a request for the carrier's rates and other service terms shall be—

(1) in writing and forwarded to the requesting person promptly after receipt of the request; or

(2) promptly made available in electronic form.

(c) Limitation on Rate Increases and Changes to Service Terms.—A pipeline carrier may not increase any common carrier rates or change any common carrier service terms unless 20 days have expired after written or electronic notice is provided to any person who, within the previous 12 months—

(1) has requested such rates or terms under subsection (b); or

(2) has made arrangements with the carrier for a shipment that would be subject to such increased rates or changed terms.

(d) Provision of Service.—A pipeline carrier shall provide transportation or service in accordance with the rates and service terms, and any changes thereto, as published or otherwise made available under subsection (b) or (c).

(e) Regulations.—The Board shall, by regulation, establish rules to implement this section. The regulations shall provide for immediate disclosure and dissemination of rates and service terms, including classifications, rules, and practices, and their effective dates. The regulations may modify the 20-day period specified in subsection (c). Final regulations shall be adopted by the Board not later than 180 days after January 1, 1996.

(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, §106(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 925; amended Pub. L. 104–287, §5(44), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3393.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 11101 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, §102(a).

#### Amendments

1996—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 104–287 substituted "January 1, 1996" for "the effective date of this section".

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

**Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, United States Senior Circuit Judge for the

Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUL 5 2001

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ROGER L. (BUCKY) MOORE, and

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

No. 00-3219

v. District of Kansas

BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE

ENGINEERS; UNION PACIFIC

RAILROAD COMPANY,

Defendants - Appellees.

(D.C. No. 99-CV-1214-JTM)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA , Chief Judge, REAVLEY **, and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-appellant Roger Moore appeals from summary judgment against

his claims that his collective bargaining representative (Brotherhood of

Locomotive Engineers) and his employer (Union Pacific Railroad) colluded to

violate his rights to fair representation and his rights under the union constitution. 
1

See New York Dock Ry. v. United States, 609 F.2d 83 (2d Cir. 1979).

2

See 45 U.S.C. § 153, First (i).

-2-

The district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction for several reasons and that

Moore’s fair-representation claim is barred by the union membership’s ratification

of the implementing agreement between Brotherhood and Union Pacific. The

court also stated that the defendants would be entitled to summary judgment. We

affirm for the following reason.

Moore has presented no evidence beyond the union agreement itself in

support of his fair-representation claim or his claim to seniority rights. Likewise,

he has offered no evidence that Union Pacific acted inappropriately. Therefore,

his fair-representation claim fails. For the same reason, no violation of the union

constitution is presented.

However, our holding does not preclude a claim that the collective

bargaining agreements were unfair to Moore or suggest any decision as to whether

that claim could be arbitrable under the New York Dock conditions,1

 or before the

National Railroad Adjustment Board.2

AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Thomas M. Reavley

Senior Circuit Judge
#### Harry Posner, Doing Business as Plaza Management Co. v. Richard Shelton.

Application denied, with $10 costs. The stay contained in the order to show cause, dated May 17, 1960, is continued for a period of 10 days from the date of entry of the order herein. Concur - — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Noonan, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Ada B. Storm, Deceased. Otto Hansen; Clara Y. Hildreth et al.

(A) Motion for reargument and resettlement denied without prejudice to an application, if necessary, for an extension of time to prepare and file respondent’s points. (B) Motion for resettlement denied, without prejudice to an application, if necessary, for an extension of time to prepare and file respondents’ points. (C) Motion for reargument denied [four decisions]. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
   THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-1998 
<CASH>                                            $87,042   
<SECURITIES>                                        5,643   
<RECEIVABLES>                                      17,046   
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0   
<INVENTORY>                                             0   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  121,111   
<PP&E>                                             16,776   
<DEPRECIATION>                                      3,905   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    145,392   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              23,743   
<BONDS>                                               693   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0   
<PREFERRED>                                             0   
<COMMON>                                            2,580   
<OTHER-SE>                                        117,695   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      145,392   
<SALES>                                                 0   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   31,460   
<CGS>                                                   0   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      16,981   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    7,864   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     27   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     7,702   
<INCOME-TAX>                                        2,278   
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 5,424   
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0   
<CHANGES>                                               0   
<NET-INCOME>                                        5,424   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0.21   
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.15   
              

                                       

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.1609 Pressure testing of casing. ( a ) Prior to drilling the plug after cementing, all casing strings, except the drive or structural casing, shall be pressure tested. The conductor casing shall be tested to at least 200 psi. All casing strings below the conductor casing shall be tested to 500 psi or 0.22 psi/ft, whichever is greater. (When oil or gas is not present in the cap rock, the production liner need not be cemented in place; thus, it would not be subject to pressure testing.) If the pressure declines more than 10 percent in 30 minutes or if there is another indication of a leak, the casing shall be recemented, repaired, or an additional casing string run and the casing tested again. The above procedures shall be repeated until a satisfactory test is obtained. The time, conditions of testing, and results of all casing pressure tests shall be recorded in the driller's report.
( b ) After cementing any string of casing other than structural, drilling shall not be resumed until there has been a time lapse of at least 8 hours under pressure for the conductor casing string or 12 hours under pressure for all other casing strings. Cement is considered under pressure if one or more float valves are shown to be holding the cement in place or when other means of holding pressure are used.
[76 FR 64462, Oct. 18, 2011, as amended at 81 FR 36151, June 6, 2016]
§ 983.9 Special housing types. ( a ) *Applicability.* ( 1 ) For applicability of rules on special housing types at 24 CFR part 982, subpart M, see § 983.2.
( 2 ) In the PBV program, the PHA may not provide assistance for shared housing, manufactured home space rental, or the homeownership option.
( b ) *Group homes.* A group home may include one or more group home units. A separate lease is executed for each elderly person or person with disabilities who resides in a group home.
( c ) *Cooperative housing.* ( 1 ) *Applicability of part 983.* Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, assistance under this housing type is subject to the regulations of part 983, except the following sections of part 983, subpart F: §§ 983.256(b) and (c), 983.258 and 983.259 do not apply.
( 2 ) *Applicability of part 982.* ( i ) Cooperative housing under the PBV program is also subject to the requirements of 24 CFR 982.619(b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(5), (d), and (e).
( ii ) Cooperative housing under the PBV program is not subject to the requirements of 24 CFR 982.619(a), (b)(1), (b)(4), and (c).
( 3 ) *Assistance in cooperative housing.* Rental assistance for PBV cooperative housing where families lease cooperative housing units from cooperative members is not a special housing type and all requirements of 24 CFR 983 apply.
( 4 ) *Rent to owner.* The regulations of 24 CFR part 983, subpart G, apply to PBV housing under paragraph (c) of this section. The reasonable rent for a cooperative unit is determined in accordance with § 983.303. For cooperative housing, the rent to owner is the monthly carrying charge under the occupancy agreement/lease between the member and the cooperative.
( 5 ) *Other fees and charges.* Fees such as application fees, credit report fees, and transfer fees shall not be included in the rent to owner.
[70 FR 59913, Oct. 13, 2005, as amended at 79 FR 36165, June 25, 2014]
### §1826. Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 95–157, §6, Nov. 8, 1977, 91 Stat. 1267.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1694e of this title.

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

#### Effective Date

For effective date of this section, see section 1825 of this title and Effective Date of Constitution note thereunder.