alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 944.10 State regulatory program approval. The Utah State program as submitted on March 3, 1980, and as amended and clarified on June 16 and July 24, 1980, and resubmitted on December 23, 1980, was conditionally approved effective January 21, 1981. Copies of the approved program, together with copies of the letter of the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining agreeing to the conditions in section 944.11, are available at: ( a ) Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, Department of Natural Resources, 3 Triad Center, suite 350, 355 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84180-1203.
( b ) Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Western Regional Coordinating Center, Technical Library, 1999 Broadway, Suite 3320, Denver, Colorado 80202-5733.
[59 FR 17933, Apr. 15, 1994, as amended at 60 FR 54593, Oct. 25, 1995]
M. P. No. 77-4.

#### Communications Properties, Inc. *v.*Archie Smith *et al.*

*William J. McGair,*for petitioner.

*Harold W. Demopulos,*for Newport Cable TV, Inc.

*To-bin, LeRoy & Silverstein, Max Wistow, Merrill W. Sherman,*for Plantations CATV Co., Inc.

*George C. Berk,*for Cable Television of Rhode Island, Inc.

*Charles J. McGovern,*for Vision Cable Company of Rhode Island, Inc.

Petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the writ shall issue forthwith.
**Exhibit 32.A****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906****OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q forthe period ending June 30, 2005, of El Paso NaturalGas Company (the “Company”) as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, James J. Cleary, President, certify(i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     /s/ James J. Cleary           James J. Cleary *Chairman of the Board and President* *(Principal Executive Officer)*August 5, 2005A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to El Paso Natural GasCompany and will be retained by El Paso Natural Gas Companyand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

March 24, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129825 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

KENNETH KARACZEWSKI,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129825 

 COA: 256172 

WCAC: 02-000480 

FARBMAN STEIN & COMPANY and 

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 18, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall 

include among the issues addressed whether appellants’ proposed overruling of Boyd v W 

G Wade Shows, 443 Mich 515 (1993), is justified under the standard for applying stare 

decisis discussed in Robinson v City of Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 463-468 (2000). 

t0321 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 24, 2006 

Clerk
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Escalade, Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending October 6, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Terry D. Frandsen, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the Company.

|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Terry D. Frandsen  
|                       
|Terry D. Frandsen      
|Chief Financial Officer
|October 24,
 2007      

18

---
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.117 Claims by customers, members, participants, or authorized users. ( a ) *Customer complaints.* Do not adjudicate claims complaints or claims for property loss or damage under this subpart that the local NAFI activity can satisfactorily resolve.
( b ) *Claims generated by concessionaires.* Most concessionaires must have commercial insurance. Any unresolved claims or complaints against concessionaires or their insurers are sent to the appropriate contracting officers.
[81 FR 83700, Nov. 22, 2016]
### §228a. Authority of Secretary to request temporary injunction or restraining order

Whenever the Secretary has reason to believe that any person subject to this chapter (a) with respect to any transactions subject to this chapter, has failed to pay or is unable to pay for livestock, meats, meat food products, or livestock products in unmanufactured form, or live poultry, or has failed to pay any poultry grower what is due on account of poultry obtained under a poultry growing arrangement, or has failed to remit to the person entitled thereto the net proceeds from the sale of any such commodity sold on a commission basis; or (b) has operated while insolvent, or otherwise in violation of this chapter in a manner which may reasonably be expected to cause irreparable damage to another person; or (c) does not have the required bond; and that it would be in the public interest to enjoin such person from operating subject to this chapter or enjoin him from operating subject to this chapter except under such conditions as would protect vendors or consignors of such commodities or other affected persons, until a complaint under this chapter is issued and dismissed by the Secretary or until an order to cease and desist made thereon by the Secretary has become final and effective within the meaning of this chapter or is set aside on appellate review of the Secretary's order, the Secretary may notify the Attorney General, who may apply to the United States district court for the district in which such person has his principal place of business or in which he resides for a temporary injunction or restraining order. When needed to effectuate the purposes of this section, the court shall, upon a proper showing, issue a temporary injunction or restraining order, without bond. Attorneys employed by the Secretary of Agriculture may, with the approval of the Attorney General, appear in the United States district court representing the Secretary in any action seeking such a temporary restraining order or injunction.

(Aug. 15, 1921, ch. 64, title IV, §408, as added Pub. L. 94–410, §5, Sept. 13, 1976, 90 Stat. 1250; amended Pub. L. 100–173, §8, Nov. 23, 1987, 101 Stat. 919.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

A prior section 228a, act Sept. 21, 1944, ch. 412, title I, §101(c), 58 Stat. 734, which related to inspections of livestock, hides, animal products, etc., was transferred to section 396 of this title.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 408 of act Aug. 15, 1921, was renumbered section 417 and is classified to section 229c of this title.

#### Amendments

1987—Pub. L. 100–173 inserted "or live poultry, or has failed to pay any poultry grower what is due on account of poultry obtained under a poultry growing arrangement," after "unmanufactured form,".

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

#### Effective Date of 1987 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–173 effective 90 days after Nov. 23, 1987, see section 12 of Pub. L. 100–173, set out as a note under section 182 of this title.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCDC to CRAY FORTRAN conversion manualDocumentation describing software differences between two general purpose computers for scientific applications is presented. Descriptions of the use of the FORTRAN and FORTRAN 77 high level programming language on a CDC 7600 under SCOPE and a CRAY XMP under COS are offered. Itemized differences of the FORTRAN language sets of the two machines are also included. The material is accompanied by numerous examples of preferred programming techniques for the two machines.Document ID19840014175Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsMcgary, C.*(Informatics, Inc. Palo Alto, CA, United States)*Diebert, D.*(Informatics, Inc. Palo Alto, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1983Subject CategoryComputer Programming And SoftwareReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-166574NAS 1.26:166574Accession Number84N22243Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS2-11555Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840014175.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### In the Matter of Dominic S. Telesco, Appellant, v. James R. Lawley et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Erie, and Jay W. Heckman, Respondents.

Appeal unanimously dismissed, without costs. Memorandum : While this court attempts to expedite appeals in proceedings relating to primary or election matters there continues to be minimal requirements beyond which we may not go. The record presented upon argument of the appeal was not stipulated by the respective attorneys, certified by any attorney or settled by Special Term. The oral arguments centered upon the adequacy or sufficiency of the record. The stipulation submitted after oral argument by some of the parties to the appeal, but not all, is hopelessly inadequate to pass upon the issues. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term adjudging the designating petition of Heckman valid and dismissing petition in proceeding.) Present—Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Veeehio, JJ.
### §1636h. Federal preemption

In order to achieve the goals, purposes, and objectives of this chapter on a nationwide basis and to avoid potentially conflicting State laws that could impede the goals, purposes, or objectives of this chapter, no State or political subdivision of a State may impose a requirement that is in addition to, or inconsistent with, any requirement of this subchapter with respect to the submission or reporting of information, or the publication of such information, on the prices and quantities of livestock or livestock products.

(Aug. 14, 1946, ch. 966, title II, §259, as added Pub. L. 106–78, title IX, §911(2), Oct. 22, 1999, 113 Stat. 1205.)
UNITE D STATE S O FAMERIC A DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C 

### '"RiRTMENTO F ;/:.iF^P0RW10 N ^ w^: t OPERATiON S ; -^ P ? M P 3

- O b

TRAVE L GROUP , INC. , D/B/ A REPUBLI C AI RTRAVE L AN D SCO T SPENCE R AIRLIF T GROUP , INC . AN D RICHAR D BERNAR D Unauthorize dAi r

Transportation , Unfai r an dDeceptiv e Practice s an dUnfai r

Method s o f

Competition , an d Violation s o f

Publi c Charte r

Rule s EXPRES S ON E INTERNATIONAL , INC . Unfai r an dDeceptiv e Practice s an dUnfai r Method s o f Competition , an dViolation s o f Publi c Charte r

Rule s Enforcemen t

Proceedin g DOT-OST-1995-27 2 formerl y Docke t 4923 3

STATU S REPOR T Th e Offic e of

th e Assistan t

Genera l Counse l for

Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an d Proceeding s ("Enforcemen t Office") , pursuan t

t o You r Honor' s Marc h 22 , 2006 , Orde r stayin g thi s proceeding , file s thi s report detailin g th e curren t

statu s of thi s proceedin g an d settlemen t

negotiations . Th e Departmen t

ha s no t rule do n th e outstandin g motion s file db y Respondent s an doppose db y th e Enforcemen t Offic e i n Ascen dAviatio n Group , Docke t OST-2004

- 17486 .Ther e hav e bee n n o further settlemen t

discussions . Date : Septembe r

24 , 2010 . Respectfull y submitted .

Samue l Podberesky Assistan t Genera l Counse l for Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an dProceeding s Dayto n Lehman , Jr . Deput y Assistan t

Genera l Counse l for Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an dProceeding s

Willia mJ . Wagne r

i Senio r Tria l Attorne y Unite dState s Departmen t of Transportatio n Offic e of Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an dProceeding s 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Roo m96-42 9 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-934 2 FAX : 202-366-715 2Docke t No . DOT-OST-1995-27 2 I hereb y certif

y tha t o n thi s 24th day of

September , 2010 , atru e an dcorrec t cop y of th e foregoin g Statu s Report

was serve di n th e followin g manne r t o th e following : Origina l U.S . Departmen t

of Transportatio n Docke t Operations , M-3 0 Wes t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mW12-14 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D.C . 2059 0 B y Persona l Servic e Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e of Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

of Transportatio n Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 TEL : (202 ) 366-214 2 FAX : (202 ) 366-753 6 B y Firs t Clas s Mai l Sco t Spence r SB D Aircraf

t Service s 25 5 S Lelan dNorto n Way SamBernardino , C A 9240 8
No. 89-6508.

#### Cox *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
### §1359ii. Appeals

#### (a) In general

An appeal may be taken to the Secretary from any decision under section 1359dd of this title establishing allocations of marketing allotments, or under section 1359ff or 1359gg(d) of this title, by any person adversely affected by reason of any such decision.

#### (b) Procedure

#### (1) Notice of appeal

Any such appeal shall be taken by filing with the Secretary, within 20 days after the decision complained of is effective, notice in writing of the appeal and a statement of the reasons therefor. Unless a later date is specified by the Secretary as part of the Secretary's decision, the decision complained of shall be considered to be effective as of the date on which announcement of the decision is made. The Secretary shall deliver a copy of any notice of appeal to each person shown by the records of the Secretary to be adversely affected by reason of the decision appealed, and shall at all times thereafter permit any such person to inspect and make copies of appellant's reasons for the appeal and shall on application permit the person to intervene in the appeal.

#### (2) Hearing

The Secretary shall provide each appellant an opportunity for a hearing before an administrative law judge in accordance with sections 554 and 556 of title 5. The expenses for conducting the hearing shall be reimbursed by the Commodity Credit Corporation.

(Feb. 16, 1938, ch. 30, title III, §359i, as added Pub. L. 107–171, title I, §1403, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 202; amended Pub. L. 110–234, title I, §1403(h), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 988; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title I, §1403(h), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1716.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 made identical amendments to this section. The amendments by Pub. L. 110–234 were repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 1359ii, act Feb. 16, 1938, ch. 30, title III, §359i, as added Pub. L. 101–624, title IX, §902, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3487; amended Pub. L. 102–237, title I, §111(k), Dec. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 1836, related to appeals, prior to the general amendment of this subpart by Pub. L. 107–171.

#### Amendments

2008—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 110–246, §1403(h)(1), inserted "or 1359gg(d)" after "1359ff".

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 110–246, §1403(h)(2), struck out subsec. (c) which related to special appeal process regarding beet sugar allocations.

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

#### Effective Date of 2008 Amendment

Amendment of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as an Effective Date note under section 8701 of this title.
Exhibit 21

List of Subsidiaries

Subsidiaries of International Bancshares Corporation

Name

State of Incorporation
or Organization

Business

% of OwnershipIBC Subsidiary Corporation


Delaware

Bank Holding Company


100
%IBC Life Insurance Company


Texas

Credit Life Insurance


100
%IBC Trading Company


Texas

Export Trading


100
%IBC Capital Corporation


Texas

Investments


100
%Premier Tierra Holdings, Inc.


Texas

Liquidating Subsidiary


100
%


Subsidiaries of IBC Subsidiary Corporation

Name

State of Incorporation
or Organization

Business

% of OwnershipInternational Bank of Commerce


Texas

State Bank


100
%Commerce Bank


Texas

State Bank


100
%International Bank of Commerce, Zapata


Texas

State Bank


100
%International Bank of Commerce, Brownsville


Texas

State Bank


100
%Gulfstar Merchant Banking I, Ltd.


Texas

Investment and Merchant Banking


70
%Gulfstar Merchant Banking II, Ltd.


Texas

Investment Banking


70
%Gulfstar Merchant Banking III, Ltd.


Texas

Merchant Banking


70
%


---



QuickLinks
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

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

______________________
DAVID BROOKS,
Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

, Respondent

______________________

2023

- 1650

______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DA

- 3443

- 17

- 0032

- I

- 1.

______________________

Before C HEN

, M AYER

, and S TOLL

, Circuit Judges

.
P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

Following this court’s order directing the parties to
show cause whether to dismiss or transfer David Brooks’ petition for review, we transfer the case to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

. We have jurisdiction to review f inal decisions from the Merit Systems Protection Board , except in “ [ c ] ases of discrimination subject to the provisions of [5 U.S.C. § ] 7702,” 5 U.S.C. § § 7703(b)(2)

, (b)(1)(A) . Those cases belong in federa l district court. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)( 2 ); Perry v. Merit Sys. Case: 23-1650 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 08/21/2023BROOKS v. MSPB 2

Prot. Bd. , 582 U.S. 420 (2017). Because Mr. Brooks’ submissions to this court indicate that he raised a covered discrimination claim before the Board and continues to seek judicial review of his claim , w e conclude that transfer is appropriate, 28 U.S.C. § 1631 , and , in agreement with the Board’s request, ECF No. 20 at 4

– 5, transfer the case to the
Southern District of Texas

. Accordingly

,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

The petition for review and all of the filings are transmitted to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

August 21 , 2023
Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
Jarret B. Perlow
Clerk of Court Case: 23-1650 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 08/21/2023
§ 203.4 Major components of the TAPP process. ( a ) The Department of Defense will issue purchase orders to technical assistance, facilitation, training, and other public participation assistance providers subject to the purchase limit per order as resources continue to be available. If multiple purchase orders are needed to assist community members of a particular RAB or TRC, the combined sum of these purchase orders cannot exceed $100,000 or, during any one year, the lesser of $25,000 or 1 percent of the installation's total projected environmental restoration cost-to-complete. Note that these limitations refer to the maximum allowable technical assistance funding per RAB/TRC. Resources available within a given year may vary. These limitations apply unless a waiver is granted by the DoD Component Secretary or equivalent for the installation in question. The $100,000 total and $25,000 annual limitations may be waived, as appropriate, to reflect the complexity of response action, the nature and extent of contamination at the installation, the level of activity at the installation, projected total needs as identified by the TAPP recipient, the size and diversity of the affected population, and the ability of the TAPP recipient to identify and raise funds from other sources.
( b ) Community members of the RAB/TRC will provide a description of the services requested (TAPP Project Description) and, if desired, the names of one or more proposed technical assistance providers to the DoD RAB Co-Chair, who will ensure the application is submitted to the installation commander or other designated authority and to the appropriate DoD contracting office. Technical assistance providers proposed by the community members of a RAB or TRC at each DoD installation that meets the minimum set of organizational qualifications guidelines provided by the Department of Defense in § 203.12 of this part will be added to the governments list of bidders for the proposed procurement.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

EXCO Resources, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-132551, 333-133481, and 333-146376) and on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-142361 and 333-145885) of EXCO Resources, Inc. and subsidiaries of our reports dated February 26, 2009, with respect to theconsolidated balance sheets of EXCO Resources, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-yearperiod ended December 31, 2008, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, which reports appear in the December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of EXCO Resources, Inc. 

Our report refers to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157, *Fair Value Measurements,*as it relates to financial instrumentseffective January 1, 2008. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Dallas, Texas 

February 26, 2009