alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 776.21 Establishment and scope of representation. ( a ) Formation of attorney-client relationships by covered USG attorneys with, and representation of, clients is permissible only when the attorney is authorized to do so by competent authority. For purposes of this part, Military Rules of Evidence 502, the Manual of the Judge Advocate General (JAGINST 5800.7 series), and the Naval Legal Service Command Manual (COMNAVLEGSVCCOMINST 5800.1 series), generally define when an attorney-client relationship is formed between a covered USG attorney and a client servicemember, dependent, or employee.
( b ) Generally, the subject matter scope of a covered attorney's representation will be consistent with the terms of the assignment to perform specific representational or advisory duties. A covered attorney shall inform clients at the earliest opportunity of any limitations on representation and professional responsibilities of the attorney towards the client.
( c ) A covered attorney shall follow the client's well-informed and lawful decisions concerning case objectives, choice of counsel, forum, pleas, whether to testify, and settlements.
( d ) A covered attorney's representation of a client does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social, or moral views or activities.
( e ) A covered attorney shall not counsel or assist a client to engage in conduct that the attorney knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a covered attorney may discuss the legal and moral consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client, and may counsel or assist a client in making a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or application of the law.
( f ) [Reserved]
#### 1409.405 Effect of listing.

When a CO finds that a compelling reason exists to conduct business with a contractor listed on the EPLS, the HCA shall submit the determination and findings to the Director, PAM, for approval.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Albert Melvin Piatt

, * From the 29th District

Court of Palo Pinto County,

Trial Court No. 14229

.

Vs. No. 11

- 14

- 00238

- CR * March 5, 2015

T he State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal

should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the appeal

is dismissed.
#### 18.109 Priorities and allocations.

The Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) supports approved national defense, emergency preparedness, and energy programs and was established to facilitate rapid industrial mobilization in case of a national emergency. (See Subpart 11.6.)

[73 FR 21785, Apr. 22, 2008]
### §2905. Certification of organizations to nominate

#### (a) Eligibility of State organization certified by Secretary; eligibility criteria

The eligibility of any State organization to represent producers and to participate in the making of nominations under section 2904(1) of this title shall be certified by the Secretary. The Secretary shall certify any State organization that the Secretary determines meets the eligibility criteria established under subsection (b) and such determination as to eligibility shall be final.

#### (b) State cattle association or State general farm organization

A State cattle association or State general farm organization may be certified as described in subsection (a) if such association or organization meets all of the following eligibility criteria:

(1) The association or organization's total paid membership is comprised of at least a majority of cattle producers or the association or organization's total paid membership represents at least a majority of the cattle producers in the State.

(2) The association or organization represents a substantial number of producers that produce a substantial number of cattle in the State.

(3) The association or organization has a history of stability and permanency.

(4) A primary or overriding purpose of the association or organization is to promote the economic welfare of cattle producers.

#### (c) Factual report basis for certification of State cattle association and State general farm association

Certification of State cattle associations and State general farm organizations shall be based on a factual report submitted by the association or organization involved.

#### (d) Certification of more than one State organization; caucus

If more than one State organization is certified in a State (or in a unit referred to in section 2904(1) of this title), such organizations may caucus to determine any of such State's (or such unit's) nominations under section 2904(1) of this title.

(Pub. L. 94–294, §6, May 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 531; Pub. L. 99–198, title XVI, §1601(b), Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1603.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1985—Pub. L. 99–198 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to certification of organizations to nominate for provisions relating to findings and issuance of orders.

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

#### Effective Date of 1985 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–198 effective Jan. 1, 1986, see section 1601(c) of Pub. L. 99–198, set out as a note under section 2901 of this title.
### §8790. Signature authority

#### (a) In general

In carrying out this title and title II and amendments made by those titles, if the Secretary approves a document, the Secretary shall not subsequently determine the document is inadequate or invalid because of the lack of authority of any person signing the document on behalf of the applicant or any other individual, entity, general partnership, or joint venture, or the documents relied upon were determined inadequate or invalid, unless the person signing the program document knowingly and willfully falsified the evidence of signature authority or a signature.

#### (b) Affirmation

#### (1) In general

Nothing in this section prohibits the Secretary from asking a proper party to affirm any document that otherwise would be considered approved under subsection (a).

#### (2) No retroactive effect

A denial of benefits based on a lack of affirmation under paragraph (1) shall not be retroactive with respect to third-party producers who were not the subject of the erroneous representation of authority, if the third-party producers—

(A) relied on the prior approval by the Secretary of the documents in good faith; and

(B) substantively complied with all program requirements 1

(Pub. L. 110–234, title I, §1617, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1021; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title I, §1617, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1750.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This title and title II, referred to in subsec. (a), are titles I and II of Pub. L. 110–246, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1753, which enacted this chapter and enacted, amended, and repealed numerous other sections and notes in the Code. For complete classification of titles I and II to the Code, see Tables.

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 enacted identical sections. Pub. L. 110–234 was repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

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

#### Effective Date

Enactment 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 a note under section 8701 of this title.

1 So in original. Probably should be followed by a period.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [Release No. 34-90916; SR-CBOE-2020-110]

                    On November 13, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) [1]                                          and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,[2]                                          a proposed rule change to change the electronic volume threshold trigger for continuous electronic quoting requirements for Market-Makers from one calendar quarter to two consecutive calendar quarters. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the                     **Federal Register**                     on November 30, 2020.[3]                                          The Commission has received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.                

On January 13, 2021, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2020-110).

                        For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.[4] 

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,

Assistant Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                             17 CFR 240.19b-4.                    
        Back to Citation      

3.                                                     *See*                         Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90482 (November 23, 2020), 85 FR 76642 (November 30, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-110).                    
        Back to Citation      

4.                                 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).                        
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2021-01134 Filed 1-19-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
#### CONSOLIDATED CAR HEATING CO. v. KAHN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 18, 1903.)

1. Goods Sold and Delivered—Action—Evidence—Variance.

Where plaintiff sues for goods sold and delivered, he is not entitled to a recovery on evidence not showing a sale or delivery, but tending to show a cause of action on an account stated.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District.

Action by the Consolidated Car Heating Company against Leopold Kahn. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Louis Scheuer, for appellant.

Hastings & Gleason, for respondent.

BLANCHARD, J.

This action was brought to recover a balance due upon a claim for goods sold and delivered. The answer of the defendant was in effect a general denial, and further specifically set out a breach of the contract of sale. Upon the trial the plaintiff did not attempt to prove the sale or delivery, but gave evidence, under the objection and exception of defendant’s counsel, of a promise of defendant to pay. The plaintiff’s proof tended rather to. establish a cause of action upon an account stated, than one for goods sold and delivered; and, at the close of plaintiff’s case, defendant moved to dismiss for the failure of plaintiff to establish the cause of action it had pleaded, which motion was denied, and defendant duly excepted.

We are of the opinion that the defendant’s exceptions are well taken. The cause of action proved must be in accordance with the cause of action alleged. Clark v. Post, 113 N. Y. 17, 20 N. E. 573, in which case Judge Danforth says (page 27, 113 N. Y., page 576, 20 N. E.):

> “A party must recover not only by his proof, but upon his allegations. The facts stated must constitute a cause of action, and they must be in evidence. It is not enough that they stand upon proof, unless that proof is preceded by statement.”

The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event. All concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC
Form 10Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-01-1997             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-04-1996             FEB-04-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-02-1996             NOV-02-1996
<CASH>                                          55,419                  55,419
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     48,083                  48,083
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               120,559                 120,559
<PP&E>                                         154,443                 154,443
<DEPRECIATION>                                  82,778                  82,778
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 209,968                 209,968
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,996                  30,996
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         2,390                   2,390
<OTHER-SE>                                     170,848                 170,848
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   209,968                 209,968
<SALES>                                        102,645                 295,746
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               102,645                 295,746
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,326                 143,322
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,094                 116,745
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,225                  35,679
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,647                  13,559
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,578                  21,120
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,578                  22,120
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16                     .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16                     .46
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 21**
**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**
Prima Energy Corporation, a Delaware corporation, has one direct wholly ownedsubsidiary, Prima Oil & Gas Company, a Colorado corporation.
Prima Oil & Gas Company has five significant wholly owned subsidiaries. Theseare as follows:
     1. Action Oil Field Services, Inc., a Colorado corporation.
     2. Action Energy Services, a Wyoming corporation.
     3. Arete Gathering Company, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability corporation.
     4. Platte Valley Management Company, a Colorado corporation.
     5. Prima Natural Gas Marketing, Inc., a Colorado corporation.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 3153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00759]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 
1817(j)(7)).
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than January 29, 2021.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. John Morrow, Albion, Nebraska; to join the Sullivan family 
group, a group acting in concert, to retain voting shares of Cedar 
Rapids State Company, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of 
Cedar Rapids State Bank, both of Cedar Rapids, Nebraska.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 11, 
2021.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2021-00759 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Second Department,

June, 1964

(June 1, 1964)

#### In the Matter of Charles Cavalleri, Appellant, v. Madeline Cavalleri, Respondent.

In a proceeding to obtain full custody of a child, petitioner father appeals (as limited by his brief) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 11, 1962 (thereafter entered in Kings County), and made on the court’s opinion and decision after a nonjury trial, as, on motion of the mother, modified a prior order by diminishing the father’s visitation rights in several respects. Order of December 11, 1962 diminishing the father’s visitation rights, modified on the law and the facts by adding a decretal paragraph granting to the father the right to have temporary custody of the child for a two-week period during the months of July or August, commencing in 1964, at a place and for any two-week period in said months selected by him. As so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to the mother. Those findings of fact which may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. We find that the parents are equally responsible: (a) for their unfortunate disputes, some of which occurred in the child’s presence; and (b) for any *783emotional or mental damage sustained by the child. We find, however, that the child’s well-being would be helped by the father’s masculine influence for a two-week period during the Summer months; he should be given custody of the child for such period. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur; Hill, J., concurs as to the modification, but dissents as to the affirmance of the order of December 11, 1962 insofar as it modifies the prior order of April 12, 1962 with respect to the father’s visitation rights and diminishes such rights; and votes to deny the wife’s motion to modify said prior order, with the following memorandum: The record in this case supports the finding of the learned Trial Justice “that both mother and father of this infant are interested in his welfare.” However, it also appears from the record that the father possesses the necessary mental and other qualifications to properly care for his four-year-old son; and such a finding is implicit in the decision of the Trial Justice. Under the circumstances, I can find nothing new to justify modification of the prior consent order of May 11, 1962, except that the infant boy is older, which should more strongly entitle him to a father’s companionship and guidance.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                   EXHIBIT 11


                                CLX ENERGY, INC.
                   Computation of Net Income (Loss) Per Share


                                                Year ended
                                               September 30,
                                         -----------------------
                                             2001        2000
                                         ------------  ---------
<S>                                      <C>           <C>
Income (loss) before extraordinary item  $(   40,930)    210,558

Extraordinary gain                            45,470           -
                                         ------------  ---------

Net income                               $     4,540     210,558
                                         ============  =========

Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding                       2,634,115   2,637,031

Common equivalent shares
  representing shares issuable
  upon exercise of outstanding
  options                                     49,242      53,572
                                         ------------  ---------

                                           2,683,357   2,690,603
                                         ============  =========

 Net income (loss) per share
    Basic:
       Income (loss) from operations     $(     0.02)       0.08
       Extraordinary gain                       0.02           -
                                         ------------  ---------

       Net income                        $      0.00        0.08
                                         ============  =========

    Diluted:
       Income (loss) from operations     $(     0.02)       0.08
       Extraordinary gain                       0.02           -
                                         ------------  ---------

       Net income                        $      0.00        0.08
                                         ============  =========

</TABLE>


                                       38
<PAGE>