alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Attorney-Client Privileged and Confidential

Off Road Vehicle

Division

Comparative Metrics: J-Turn 

and Tilt Table Correlation
Attorney-Client Privileged and Confidential

Off Road Vehicle

Division

TTA Hang Tag Would Provide Comparable Comparison of Vehicles

2

Correlation: J-Turn Ay and TTA

Return
UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA

ZA HAR OMAR K

HAMIS BIN : HAMDOUN, : : P etitioner , :

: v. : Civil Action No. 05-280 (G K)

: BARACK

OBAMA, et al. , : : Respondents. :

ORDER Upon consideration of Petitioner Z ahir Omar Khamis Bin Hamdoun’s (I SN 576) Response
to the Court’s Februar

y 18, 2010, Orde r to Show Cause, and Respondents’ Reply there to, it is hereb7 ORDERED , that Petitioner’s Petition for W ri t of Habe as Corpus is dismissed wi thout prejudice.

Marc h 24, 2010 /s/ Glady s Kessler United States District Judg e
#### In the Matter of Mika Realty Corp., Respondent, v. Leonard L. Horn et al., Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, Appellants.

In a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, to annul a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, which denied the petitioner’s application for a use variance, the Zoning Board appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered January 25, 1962, upon the court’s decision after a hearing, which: (a) annulled the deteimination; and (b) remitted the matter to the board with a direction that it grant the variance. Order reversed on the law and on the facts, without costs, and determination confirmed, without prejudice however to renewal by the petitioner of its application to the Zoning Board, if petitioner be so advised. Findings of fact contained or implicit in the opinion at Special Term inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. The board’s denial of the petitioner’s application for a use variance was not arbitrary or contrary to law insofar as such denial was based upon the petitioner’s failure to prove: (a) that the condition of its property was unique; and (lb) that it was unable to realize a reasonable return (cf. *Matter of Otto*v. *Steinhilber,*282 N. Y. 71, 76; *Matter of Forrest-*v. *Eversbed,*7 N Y 2d 256, 261 — 262; *People ex rel. Fordliam M. It. Clivreh*v. *Walsh,*244 N. Y. 280, 290). However, insofar as the board’s denial was based upon its finding and its conclusion that the petitioner's alleged hardship was self-created, the board’s determination was contrary to law. At the. time of the petitioner’s acquisition of its property for business use the rear half of its property was residentially zoned, while the remainder, bordering upon Jericho Turnpike, was zoned for business use. At that time, if the petitioner had made application, the town’s zoning ordinance authorized the board to grant to the petitioner a special exception to use the residentially zoned section of its property for business purposes, provided that it met certain standards. Several years thereafter, the ordinance was amended so that it delimited the board’s power to grant special exceptions. The amendment required the petitioner, upon its application to the board, to request a variance. Under the circumstances revealed by this record, we find that there was no self-imposed hardship, but that the proof was inadequate to justify the granting of a variance. Ughetta, Acting I’. J., ICleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00057- CV

Ross O. Brow n, App ellant

v. The Coun ty of Com al, Texas, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F CO MAL CO UNTY, 274 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT

NO. T-7 993C, HO NORAB LE JACK RO B ISO N, JUDGE P RESIDING

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

Appellant filed his notice of ap p ea l o n J anuary 31, 2014, and filed an aff idavit of indige nce in this Court on Fe bruar y 18. On Marc h 17, appellee filed a response as serting that appellant was not indig ent and that the af fidavit containe d sever al defe cts. We the ref ore abate the appea l and rema

nd to the t ri al court to hear evidenc e, make fac tual deter minations, and g rant the appropri at e relief

. See Tex. R. App. P
. 20.1(h)( 4). Notice shall be given and the hearing shall be held within the deadlines set out in the rules of appellate proce dure. See id. R. 20.1(i)(1) (trial court must set hear ing and notify parties and court repor ter), (2) (hea

ring must be held within ten day s of d at e t ri al court rec eives ref err al of contest), (3) (trial court may extend time for hear ing for up t o twenty day s), (4) (conte st is deeme d overr uled unless trial court signs order sustaining contest within period set f

or hea ring ).I t is ordere d May 6, 2014.

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and F ield Abated a nd Remanded Filed: May

6, 2014

2
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Marvin E. Aspen Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

Geraldine Soat Brown

CASE NUMBER 12 C 5252 DATE 11/8/2012

CASE

TITLE

Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP vs. Strabala

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Status hearing held. Off the record settlement conference held. Plaintiff shall serve a supplemental

settlement letter on defendant pursuant to paragraph one of this Court’s standing order for settlement

conference by 11/21/12. The defendant shall serve the responsive supplemental letter to the plaintiff’s

settlement letter by 12/6/12. Counsel shall fax or deliver copies of the letters to this Court’s courtroom

deputy at the time they are served. Settlement Conference remains set for 12/13/12 at 11:00 a.m.

Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

*Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

00:05 00:15

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

psm

12C5252 Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP vs. Strabala Page 1 of 1

Case: 1:12-cv-05252 Document #: 62 Filed: 11/08/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:864
# C_2017066EN.01000301.xml

| 2.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 66/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 66/3

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2017/C 66/03)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : Latvia

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : Latgale

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : The design shows the coat of arms of the region of Latgale. At the top, the name of the issuing country ‘LATVIJA’ and at the bottom the inscription ‘LATGALE’. At the right hand side, the year of issuance ‘2017’.

Description of the design

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Approximate number of coins to be issued
  :

Approximate number of coins to be issued

Approximate date of issue
  : October 2017

Approximate date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
d25558_ex10-1.htm


    STATE
OF DELAWARE

    CERTIFICATE
OF AMENDMENT

    OF
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

    


    The corporation organized and existing
under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware does
hereby certify that:

    


    FIRST: That by unanimous
consent of the Board of Directors of Laredo Mining, Inc.
resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment of the
Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation, declaring said amendment to be
advisable and in the best interest of the shareholders of the
Corporation.  The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is
as follows:

    


    RESOLVED,
that the Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation be amended by changing
Articles numbered “FIRST” so that, as
amended, said Articles shall be and read as follows:

    


    FIRST:
The name of this corporation is Laredo Oil, Inc.

    


    RESOLVED,
that the Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation be amended by changing
the Article numbered “FOURTH” so that, as
amended, said Article shall be and read as follows:

    


    FOURTH:
The total number of shares which the corporation shall have the authority to
issue is 90,000,000 Shares of Common Stock with $0.0001 par value and 10,000,000
shares of Preferred Stock with $0.0001 par value.

    


    Each one
(1) share of the corporation’s Common Stock, par value $0.0001, issued and
outstanding as of October 26, 2009, shall be converted into six and one quarter
(6.25) shares of the corporation’s Common Stock, par value
$0.0001.  Any fractional shares resulting from such conversion shall
be rounded up to the nearest whole share.

    


    SECOND: That thereafter,
pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors, a majority of the
corporation’s stockholders voted in favor of the amendment.

    


    THIRD: That said amendment was
duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

    



    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    


     

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said
corporation has caused this certificate to be signed this 16th day of October,
2009.

    


    


    By:  /s/ Mark
See____________________

    


    Title: CEO_________________________

    


    Name: Mark
See____________________
Clean Power Plan 

Good Afternoon, my name is William Midcap. I live in Fort Morgan Colorado, about 80 miles 

northeast of Denver. I am a consumer of electricity and serve on a rural electric board of 

directors. Currently I am the president of Colorado Rural Electric Association. CREA represents 

the interests of a very diverse set of folks, and the coops in Colorado serve over 1.3m people. I 

work for Rocky Mountain Farmers Union in Denver; Rocky has 18,000 members in Colorado. 

Rocky Mountain Farmers Union represents family farms and ranches. Fort Morgan is like many 

communities in Colorado, communities that rely on agriculture. Agriculture depends on many 

resources including electricity made from coal, all of us in this room eat because of agriculture. 

Agriculture and the rural businesses that depend on agriculture cannot survive the rate increases 

that this proposed rule will need to initiate. The idea that we could be forced to shut down viable 

power plants that now supply much of our electricity and build combined cycle gas plants is just 

not economically sound. Some utility experts have said the rule forces Colorado to respond to a 

30% reduction starting in 2018 and the 30% reduction taking place before 2020. The remaining 

5% reduction would then happen over the next 10 years. I don't see this as a feasible option. 

Coops in Colorado have initiated many energy efficiency projects. My home coop has recently 

developed a program in cooperation with our state energy office, to reduce the loads at many of 

the dairies that we serve. Remember I said that agriculture was the backbone of my community. 

Leprino makes cheese in my hometown and that factory employs over 400 people. Morgan 

County is home to over 40,000 cows milking. I don't know how many maids a milking are 

employed but I know it takes a lot of electricity to keep those cows productive and that plant 

going. We also process some 3500 head of cattle daily in Fort Morgan and we have a 100 year 

old tradition of making sugar from sugar beets. Like I said my community, like many others in 

Colorado, depend on agriculture. If you close the plants that supply our electricity prematurely 

and make us pay for those stranded resources and build additional plants to provide us with the 

electricity we need costs will go up. Food costs to feed this nation will go up. Family farmers 

will see very little return on investment and we will see more people moving off the land and 

into the cities. 

Recently White House advisor, John Podesta, was quoted saying additional actions will be 

added tovi*u the agriculture sector to make the U.S. food supply more resilient to climate 

change. 

It has been reported that Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz will soon unveil a series of actions to 

reduce methane emissions. 

While all these measures to reduce greenhouse gases may be at the top of the list for the 

administration let's make sure this does not over burden America's most important sector— 

Agriculture. 

Thank You
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

KELLY MCAULIFF,

Plaintiff,

Vv.

OFCR. BABUSCH, LT. HOWARD
METRA POLICE, and UNKNOWN
METRA POLICE OFFICERS,

Defendants.

NO.: 12 C 004347

JUDGE MATTHEW F. KENNELLY

STIPULATION TO DISMISS ACTION

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties to the

above entitled action, through their respective attorneys, that said action be dismissed

with prejudice and without costs to any party, all costs having been paid and all matters

in controversy for which said action was brought having been fully settled, compromised

and adjourned.

Dated: December 14, 2012

dhe Gredalees A
Attorney for Plaintif
McDermott & McDermott, Ltd.
600 Holiday Plaza Drive, Suite 500
Matteson, Illinois 60443-2239
708-747-9440

vel Montes
Attorney for Defendants
Metra Law Department
547 W. Jackson Boulevard, 15" Fl.
Chicago, Illinois 60661
312-322-6693
');
	document.write('

*Today, the Administration released the fiscal year 2023 budget request for the U.S. Department of Education. “Federal budgets are an expression of values. This proposal reflects the Biden-Harris administration’s deep belief in the importance of education and the success and wellbeing of our nation’s students. It’s my hope that Congress answers the President’s call for continued investments that help our schools hire and support more teachers, school counselors, and other personnel who can nurture the social, emotional, and academic development and mental well-being of our children and youth in this critical time and beyond. Across the country, we must focus our efforts on recovery. That means ensuring all students—especially those from underserved communities and those most impacted by the pandemic—receive the resources they need to thrive. Importantly, this budget also invests in access to affordable higher education and the creation of stronger pathways that meet the demands of our workforce and connect students to well-paying jobs and fulfilling careers,” said Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona.*

The following materials show what this budget provides for the programs and activities of the Department of Education:

- Press Release
- *The FY 2023 Education Budget Summary and Background Information [**PDF**, 447K] provides program information and detailed budget tables.
- *The FY 2023 Education Budget Key Highlights [**PDF**, 184K]
- FY 2023 Justifications of Appropriations Estimates to the Congress

### FY 2023 Budget for the entire U.S. Government

- The President’s FY 2023 Budget for the entire United States Government

**The Department of Education strives to make all content accessible to everyone. While this document does not currently meet the standards of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, an accessible version is forthcoming. If you would like to receive notification when the accessible version is available, please contact the Department’s Information Technology Accessibility Program Manager, Denise McGland*.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT


I, John J. Holland, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Butler Manufacturing
Company, certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
     ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15
     U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




August 14, 2002                         /s/ John J. Holland
------------------                      --------------------------------------
Dated                                   John J. Holland
                                        Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer
#### 252.237-7004 Area of performance.

As prescribed in 237.7003(a) and (a)(2), use the following clause:

# Area of Performance (DEC 1991)

(a) The area of performance is as specified in the contract.

(b) The Contractor shall take possession of the remains at the place where they are located, transport them to the Contractor's place of preparation, and later transport them to a place designated by the Contracting Officer.

(c) The Contractor will not be reimbursed for transportation when both the place where the remains were located and the delivery point are within the area of performance.

(d) If remains are located outside the area of performance, the Contracting Officer may place an order with the Contractor under this contract or may obtain the services elsewhere. If the Contracting Officer requires the Contractor to transport the remains into the area of performance, the Contractor shall be paid the amount per mile in the schedule for the number of miles required to transport the remains by a reasonable route from the point where located to the boundary of the area of performance.

(e) The Contracting Officer may require the Contractor to deliver remains to any point within 100 miles of the area of performance. In this case, the Contractor shall be paid the amount per mile in the schedule for the number of miles required to transport the remains by a reasonable route from the boundary of the area of performance to the delivery point.

(End of clause)

[56 FR 36479, July 31, 1991, as amended at 71 FR 3416, Jan. 23, 2006; 84 FR 48505, Sept. 13, 2019]
227.7103-15 Subcontractor rights in technical data. ( a ) 10 U.S.C. 3771 provides subcontractors at all tiers the same protection for their rights in data as is provided to prime contractors. The clauses at 252.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data—Other Than Commercial Products and Commercial Services, and 252.227-7037, Validation of Restrictive Markings on Technical Data, implement the statutory requirements.
( b ) 10 U.S.C. 3782 permits a subcontractor to transact directly with the Government matters relating to the validation of its asserted restrictions on the Government's rights to use or disclose technical data. The clause at 252.227-7037 obtains a contractor's agreement that the direct transaction of validation or challenge matters with subcontractors at any tier does not establish or imply privity of contract. When a subcontractor or supplier exercise its right to transact validation matters directly with the Government, contracting officers shall deal directly with such persons, as provided at 227.7103-13(c)(3).
( c ) Require prime contractors whose contracts include the following clauses to include those clauses, without modification except for appropriate identification of the parties, in contracts with subcontractors or suppliers, at all tiers, who will be furnishing technical data for other than commercial products or commercial services in response to a Government requirement: ( 1 ) 252.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data—Other Than Commercial Products and Commercial Services;
( 2 ) 252.227-7025, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Government-Furnished Information Marked with Restrictive Legends;
( 3 ) 252.227-7028, Technical Data or Computer Software Previously Delivered to the Government; and
( 4 ) 252.227-7037, Validation of Restrictive Markings on Technical Data.
( d ) Do not require contractors to have their subcontractors or suppliers at any tier relinquish rights in technical data to the contractor, a higher tier subcontractor, or to the Government, as a condition for award of any contract, subcontract, purchase order, or similar instrument except for the rights obtained by the Government under the Rights in Technical Data—Other Than Commercial Products and Commercial Services clause contained in the contractor's contract with the Government.
[56 FR 36389, July 31, 1991, as amended at 60 FR 61598, Nov. 30, 1995; 87 FR 76994, Dec. 16, 2022; 88 FR 6585, Jan. 31, 2023]
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 12 (Thursday, January 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 6373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01408]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    The National Science Board's Awards and Facilities Committee, 
pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science 
Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in 
the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling 
of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board 
business, as follows:

TIME AND DATE: Tuesday, January 26, 2021, from 12:00-1:00 p.m. EST.

PLACE: This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National 
Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.

STATUS: Closed

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda of the teleconference is: Chair's 
opening remarks, Discussion of Mid-scale Research Infrastructure Track 
2 awards, and Chair's closing remarks.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Point of contact for this meeting 
is: Michelle McCrackin, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#422f2f212130232129022c31246c252d34"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3954545a5a4b585a5279574a5f175e564f">[email protected]</span></a>, (703) 292-7000. Meeting 
information and updates may be found at http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/meetings/notices.jsp#sunshine. Please refer to the National Science 
Board website www.nsf.gov/nsb for general information.

Chris Blair,
Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.
[FR Doc. 2021-01408 Filed 1-15-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Order filed November 5, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00614-CV

____________

MAXIM CRANE WORKS, L.P., Appellant

V.

BERKEL & COMPANY CONTRACTORS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 149th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 75576-CV

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due October 22, 2015. No brief or motion for 

extension of time has been filed. 

Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before November 25, 

2015, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM