alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Proposed Rule: Final Confidentiality Determinations for Nine Subparts and Amendments to Subpart A and I under 

the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule

Meeting Documentation: Phone communication with American Petroleum Institute, April 16, 2012

Date EPA Staff Contact 

Information (Name, email, 

phone #)

Name of Organization 

(Attach list of all 

attendees names and 

emails if possible) 

Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, 

reporting requirements, etc.)

Written Comments 

Provided?

Did they also 

submit to Docket?

Date sent to EPACCD

4/16/12 Anhar Karimjee, 

karimjee.anhar@epa.gov

David Jacobson

Jacobson.david@epa.gov

API:

Karin Ritter,

ritterk@api.org

EPA sought clarification on API's 

comment that some data elements, if made 

publicly available, would reveal 

information concerning exploratory wells.

Comments 

previously 

provided and 

submitted to 

Docket

4/6/12
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

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.

_________________________________________ Clerk April 1, 2013

t0325 

# Order

April 1, 2013

145841

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145841

COA: 305076

Ingham CC: 10

- 000296

- FC

MICHAEL DUANE CORNELIUS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 14, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### 225.770 Prohibition on acquisition of certain items from Communist Chinese military companies.

This section implements section 1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Pub. L. 109-163), section 1243 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81), and section 1296 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328). See PGI 225.770 for additional information relating to this statute, the terms used in this section, the United States Munitions List (USML), and the 600 series of the Commerce Control List (CCL).

[83 FR 66071, Dec. 21, 2018]
Web address for download of DJI Phantom 3 user manu al and quick start guide, both of which

exceeded the file size limit for uploading to the F ederal Docket Management System:

Quick Start Guide:

http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Ad vanced_Quick_Start_Guide_en_v1.2 .pdf

User Manual:

http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Ad vanced_User_Manual_v1.4_en.pdf
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

June 09, 2006

Mr. George Thomas Bohl

Office of the Attorney General of Texas

P.O. Box 12548

Austin, TX 78711-2548

Ms. Martha S. Dickie

Minton Burton Foster & Collins

1100 Guadalupe Street

Austin, TX 78701

Mr. Richard W. Lowerre

Lowerre & Kelly

44 East Avenue, Suite 101

Austin, TX 78701

Mr. R. Lambeth Townsend

Lloyd Gosselink Blevins Rochelle & Townsend, P.C.

816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1900

Austin, TX 78701

The Honorable Craig T. Enoch

Winstead Sechrest & Minick, P.C.

401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2100

Austin, TX 78701

Mr. Jonathan D. Pauerstein

Loeffler Tuggey Pauerstein Rosenthal LLP

755 E. Mulberry, Suite 200

San Antonio, TX 78212

RE:Case Number:  03-1111

Court of Appeals Number:  03-03-00154-CV

Trial Court Number:  GN2-01217

Style:CITY OF MARSHALL AND TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

v.

CITY OF UNCERTAIN, CADDO LAKE AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND TOURISM, GREATER CADDO LAKE ASSOCIATION, CADDO LAKE INSTITUTE, JOHN T. ECHOLS AND BARRY L. BENNICK

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Andrew Weber, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 03-1111Page 2**
Exhibit 32.4

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Paul R. Flanders, Chief Financial Officer of Carrols Corporation (the
Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 1, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ PAUL R. FLANDERS                                  
|Paul R. Flanders                                      
|Vice President  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|May 14, 2007
#### George O’Neill, Respondent-Appellant, v. Thomas Hamill, Respondent, and Joseph Sykes, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, the plaintiff and the defendant Sykes cross-appeal as follows from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 3, 1963 upon a jury’s verdict after trial: (1) The plaintiff appeals from so much *692of the judgment as dismissed his complaint as against the defendant Hamill; and (2) the defendant Sykes appeals from so much of the judgment as awarded damages to the plaintiff against him. On plaintiff’s appeal: Judgment, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. On defendant Sykes’ appeal: Judgment, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the law and the facts; action as against him severed; and a new trial granted solely as between plaintiff and said defendant, with costs to abide the event. Plaintiff failed to establish actionable negligence on the part of defendant Sykes. There is no doubt that his prior plea of guilty to the statutory violation of driving his automobile while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1192) was properly admitted, and that such violation, in and of itself, constituted negligence *(Ando*v. *Woodberry,*8 N Y 2d 165; *Martin*v. *Herzog,*228 N. Y. 164, 168). However, despite such proof and such negligence on the part of this defendant, he may be cast in liability only on the basis of a further showing that such statutory negligence was a proximate cause of the accident and of plaintiff’s injury (cf. *Williams*v. *State of New York,*308 N. Y. 548, 554; *Cole*v. *Swagler,*308 N. Y. 325, 331; *Martin,*v. *Herzog, supra,*p. 170; *Ricci*v. *Rolles,*16 A D 2d 788). Proof of such causal connection was here absent. In the interests of justice a new trial is granted to permit plaintiff to show by proper proof, such causal connection. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     Canadian Dollars

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                .6789
<CASH>                                         4,887,716
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  292,831
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,429,508
<PP&E>                                         19,314,063
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,018,066)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 15,725,505
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          671,376
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       14,239,740
<OTHER-SE>                                     578,344
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   15,725,505
<SALES>                                        219,728
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               364,826
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,221,620
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,856,794)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,856,794)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,856,794)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.13)




</TABLE>
#### 219.805-2 Procedures.

When processing requirements under the PA, follow the procedures at PGI 219.805-2 for requesting eligibility determinations.

[72 FR 20762, Apr. 26, 2007]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R . 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

1 Plunkett consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-40613

Summary Calendar

_____________________

NOEL EDWARD PLUNKETT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

MICHAEL A. PURDY; J. DIAZ;

L. TEMPLE; J. GERALDI,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-97-CV-677

_________________________________________________________________

May 27, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Federal prisoner Noel Edward Plunkett appeals the magistrate

judge’s 1 dismissal as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e )

,

of his civil rights lawsuit alleging that a prison guard, Officer

Diaz, labeled him as a “snitch” to other prisoners in retaliation

for his earlier complaints about Officer Diaz and for another

lawsuit that he has filed. Plunkett also argues that the other2

defendants-appellees, by rejecting his prison grievance complaining

about Officer Diaz’s acts, condoned the retaliation.

Plunket t does not brief any argument in connection with the

dismissal of the United States as a defendant to the lawsuit. His

argument is therefore waived. S ee Yohey v. Collins

, 985 F.2d 222,

224-25 (5th Cir. 1993)(arguments not briefed on appeal are waived).

Plunkett has not demonstrated that the magistrate judge abused

her discretion in dismissing his lawsuit. Plunkett has failed to

allege sufficient facts to sho w that the defendants-appellees

violated his constitutional rights. S ee Newton v. Black

, 133 F.3d

301, 308 (5th Cir. 1998); Thompkins v. Belt

, 828 F.2d 298, 303 (5th

Cir. 1997). He has also failed to demonstrate a retaliatory

motive, either through direct evidence or by alleging a chronology

of events from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred. S ee

Woods v. Smith

, 6 0 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). His

retaliation claims are therefore without arguable basis in law and

fact and were properly dismissed.

Plunkett argues for the first time in his reply brief that he

has been the victim of racial dis crimination and retaliation

because of his existing and threatened litigation, in violation of

his rights of equal protection, free speech, and access to the

courts. However, this court will not consider issues raised for

the first time in a reply brief. S ee United States v. Prince

, 868

F.2d 1379, 1386.2 The appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel and to file

brief in present form is DENIED.

3 A F F I R M E D. 2
# C_2017098EN.01000101.xml

| 29.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8373 — Europa Capital/Rezidor/PHD Polska)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 98/01)

On 22 March 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8373. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8373. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
#### 252.235-7005--252.235-7009 [Reserved]
Attachment to memo: Walton, T. to D. Putney, July 23, 2014, 3 pages

3
225.770-5 Waiver of prohibition. ( a ) The prohibition in 225.770-2 may be waived, on a case-by-case basis, if an official identified in paragraph (b) of this subsection determines that a waiver is necessary for national security purposes.
( b ) The following officials are authorized, without power of delegation, to make the determination specified in paragraph (a) of this subsection: ( 1 ) The Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment).
( 2 ) The Secretaries of the military departments.
( 3 ) The Component Acquisition Executive of the Defense Logistics Agency.
( c ) ( 1 ) The official granting a waiver shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees, with a copy to the Principal Director, Defense Pricing, Contracting, and Acquisition Policy (see PGI 225.770-5), not less than 15 days before issuing the waiver.
( 2 ) In the report, the official shall— ( i ) Identify the specific reasons for the waiver; and
( ii ) Include recommendations as to what actions may be taken to develop alternative sourcing capabilities in the future.
[71 FR 53046, Sept. 8, 2006, as amended at 77 FR 30366, May 22, 2012; 83 FR 66072, Dec. 21, 2018; 88 FR 73236, Oct. 25, 2023; 89 FR 60831, July 29, 2024]
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 121 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 121

Designating April 11, 2017, as the ``National Birthday of the U.S. Navy 
                           Submarine Force''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                April 6 (legislative day, April 4), 2017

  Mr. Murphy (for himself and Mr. Blumenthal) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Designating April 11, 2017, as the ``National Birthday of the U.S. Navy 
                           Submarine Force''.

Whereas, for 117 years, the broad strategic and tactical advantages created by 
        the submarine force of the Navy (referred to in this preamble as the 
        ``Submarine Force'') have enhanced the national security of the United 
        States through undersea missions;
Whereas, over the course of the last 11 decades, the submarines of the Navy have 
        advanced through 4 generations;
Whereas the Navy first acquired a commissioned submarine, the USS Holland (SS-
        1), on April 11, 1900;
Whereas the first generation submarines of the Navy rapidly evolved from small, 
        limited-capability submersibles to a dominant force in naval warfare;
Whereas the second generation submarines of the Navy, defined by the heroes of 
        World War II, made a decisive difference in a war in which control of 
        the sea was crucial;
Whereas the third generation submarines of the Navy, defined by the Cold War and 
        the use of nuclear power, helped prevent a nuclear world war and secured 
        the interests of the United States;
Whereas the modern, fourth generation submarines of the Navy use long-range 
        sensors and weapons to stay ahead of global threats and preserve freedom 
        of navigation in the global maritime environment;
Whereas, in 2017, the Submarine Force consists of 52 attack, 14 ballistic 
        missile, and 4 guided missile submarines that enable the Navy to win 
        wars, prevent conflicts, and defeat threats posed by terrorists;
Whereas, throughout the history of the Submarine Force, the 1 constant has been 
        the tremendous character, courage, and dedication of the men and women 
        who maintain, equip, and train and fight in the submarines of the Navy; 
        and
Whereas April 11, 2017, marks the 117th birthday of the Submarine Force and is 
        an appropriate date to designate as the ``National Birthday of the U.S. 
        Navy Submarine Force'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates April 11, 2017, as the ``National Birthday 
        of the U.S. Navy Submarine Force''; and
            (2) acknowledges the critical role that the men and women 
        of the submarine force of the Navy fulfill in defending the 
        United States.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−05252

Honorable Marvin E. Aspen

Jay Marshall Strabala

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, August 1, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Marvin E. Aspen:Applications to appear pro hac

vice [49] (50) of Marcia Paul and Camille Calman as counsel for plaintiff is

granted.Judicial staff mailed notice(gl, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-05252 Document #: 51 Filed: 08/01/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:847
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000016343
<NAME> CALIFORNIA JOCKEY CLUB AND BAY MEADOWS OPERATING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           7,708
<SECURITIES>                                     5,609
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,269
<ALLOWANCES>                                        77
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,217
<PP&E>                                          41,312
<DEPRECIATION>                                (22,512)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,346
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,638
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           116
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,592
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,346
<SALES>                                          1,063
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,591
<CGS>                                              329
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,709
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,882
<INCOME-TAX>                                       748
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,134
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,134
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37
        

</TABLE>
2432.908 Contract clauses. ( c ) ( 1 ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 2452.232-73, Constructive Acceptance Period, in solicitations and contracts when the contracting officer has determined that an acceptance period longer than the 7 days provided for in the FAR clause at 52.232-25, “Prompt Payment,” is needed.
( 2 ) The contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially the same as provided at 2452.232-70, Payment Schedule and Invoice Submission (Fixed-price), in fixed-price contracts other than performance-based contracts under which performance-based payments will be used.
( 3 ) The contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially the same as provided at 2452.232-71, Voucher Submission, in all cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, and labor-hour type solicitations and contracts. The contracting officer shall insert the billing period agreed upon with the contractor (see also the FAR clause at 52.216-7, “Allowable Cost and Payment”).
( 4 ) The Contracting Officer may substitute appropriate language for the clauses in paragraph (c)(2) and (3) of this clause when payment under the contract will be made on the basis of other than the submission of an invoice or voucher; e.g., directly from proceeds of property sales.
[77 FR 73531, Dec. 10, 2012]