alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Motion Granted and Abatement Order filed January 2 9 , 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00956

- CV NO. 14

- 18

- 01005

- CV

____________ LOWELL VERMILLION , Appellant

V. EPIC LIFT SYSTEMS, L LC , Appellee

On Appeal from the 113th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018

- 63586



### ABATEMENT ORDER
The parties filed a joint motion for a “thirty

- day extension of all deadlines, including the current deadline for Appellant’s brief ” in these appeals. The motion states the parties are in “good

- faith settlement negotiations,” and they expect any resolution of the matter to occur within the next 30 days.

We GRANT the parties’ motion to extend and , on our own motion, we
ABATE these appeal s . The appeal s are abated, treated as closed case s , and removed2

from this court’s active docket until April 1, 2019 . The appeal s will be reinstated on this court’s active docket at that time, or when a motion to rei nstate or motion to dismiss the appeal s is filed . The court may reinstate the appeal s on its own motion.
If the appeal is not dismissed, appellant’s brief in each appeal will be due 20 days after that appeal is reinstated.

PER CURIAM
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ON May 26, 1998.



*Certificate No.  **                                           **   Shares   **


                           Hartland Investments Inc.

                     Secretary of State File No. _____________

                                  COMMON STOCK

This certifies that __________________is the owner(s) of ____________ fully paid
and non-assessable shares of Hartland Investments Inc., a Delaware  corporation,
transferable  only on the books of the  Corporation  by the  holder  hereof,  in
person or by duly  authorized  Attorney,  upon  surrender  of this  Certificate,
properly endorsed.

In Witness Whereof, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of be issued and
signed by its duly appointed officers on ________.


_______________________________                  _______________________________
President                                        Secretary

                           $0.01 PAR VALUE PER SHARE
# C_2017240EN.01000201.xml

| 25.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

24 July 2017

(2017/C 240/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1648 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 129,09 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4361 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89350 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5883 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1020 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,3525 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,024 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 305,15 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2408 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5638 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,1378 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4661 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4584 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,0931 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5657 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5859 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 299,12 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,0916 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8622 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4098 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 516,30 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9848 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,001 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 69,8567 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,893 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,6543 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,5982 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 75,0105 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1648

JPY

Japanese yen

129,09

DKK

Danish krone

7,4361

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89350

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5883

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1020

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,3525

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,024

HUF

Hungarian forint

305,15

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2408

RON

Romanian leu

4,5638

TRY

Turkish lira

4,1378

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4661

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4584

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,0931

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5657

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5859

KRW

South Korean won

1 299,12

ZAR

South African rand

15,0916

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8622

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4098

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 516,30

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9848

PHP

Philippine peso

59,001

RUB

Russian rouble

69,8567

THB

Thai baht

38,893

BRL

Brazilian real

3,6543

MXN

Mexican peso

20,5982

INR

Indian rupee

75,0105

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
242.705-2 Auditor determination procedure. ( b ) *Procedures.* (2)(iii) When agreement cannot be reached with the contractor, the auditor will issue a DCAA Form 1, Notice of Contract Costs Suspended and/or Disapproved, in addition to the advisory report to the administrative contracting officer.
[56 FR 36437, July 31, 1991, as amended at 60 FR 61599, Nov. 30, 1995; 64 FR 61030, Nov. 9, 1999; 70 FR 67920, Nov. 9, 2005]
and Heat Pumps as Discussed in the

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

. 2:: ,, : ' ' .

g * ;i. t - ''

EE-RM-TP-99-460 COMMENT 02CC
Definitions and Scope of Coverage

Heating-Only Heat Pumps

DOE proposes to exclude heating-only heat pumps.

: : :. : : 

C ,,' :!s : . :: .::..: Computer Room Air Conditioners

DOE proposes to exclude computer room air conditioners.

Equipment with a Variable-Speed Drive

DOE proposes that small commercial, air-cooled package AC's

and HP's having cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h have

to meet efficiency standards that account for part load

performance.

EE-RM-TP-99-460 COMMENT 02CC
Test Procedures

Test Procedures the Department Intends to Adopt

ARI Standard 210/240-94

* ARI Standard 340/360-93

ARI Standard 320-98

ARI Standard 310/380-93

EE-RM-TP-99-460 COMMENT 02CC
Test Procedures

Minimum External Static Pressure

The proposed minimum static pressure requirements are

unchanged. They are prescribed in the test procedures DOE is

proposing to adopt.

Water-Source Heat Pumps

DOE proposes to adopt ARI 320-98.

^ ^^ *i; *:-3;YiZ" /.;S.5^ TM/ 

:

EE-RM-TP-99-460 COMMENT 02CC
232.1004 Procedures. ( b ) *Establishing performance-based finance payment amounts.* ( i ) The contracting officer should include in a solicitation both the progress payments and performance-based payments provisions and clauses prescribed in this part, when considering both types of payment methods. Only one type of financing will be included in the resultant contract, except as may be authorized on separate orders subject to FAR 32.1003(c)).
( ii ) The contracting officer shall analyze the performance-based payment schedule using the performance-based payments (PBP) analysis tool. The PBP analysis tool is on the Defense Pricing, Contracting, and Acquisition Policy website in the Price, Cost and Finance section. The PBP analysis tool and Performance Based Payments Guidebook are available at *https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/pcf/pricing-topics.html#pdp .* ( A ) When considering performance-based payments, obtain from the offeror/contractor a proposed performance-based payments schedule that includes all performance-based payments events, completion criteria and event values along with the projected monthly expenditure profile in order to negotiate the value of the performance events such that the performance-based payments are not expected to result in an unreasonably low or negative level of contractor investment in the contract. If performance-based payments are deemed practical, the Government will evaluate and negotiate the details of the performance-based payments schedule.
( B ) For modifications to contracts that already use performance-based payments financing, the basis for negotiation must include performance-based payments. The PBP analysis tool will be used in the same manner to help determine the price for the modification.
( iii ) The contracting officer shall document in the contract file that the performance-based payment schedule provides a mutually beneficial settlement position that reflects adequate consideration to the Government for the improved contractor cash flow.
( c ) *Instructions for multiple appropriations.* If the contract contains foreign military sales requirements, the contracting officer shall provide instructions for distribution of the contract financing payments to each country's account.
[63 FR 11537, Mar. 9, 1998, as amended at 79 FR 17936, Mar. 31, 2014; 85 FR 19688, Apr. 8, 2020; 87 FR 15818, Mar. 18, 2022; 89 FR 60832, July 29, 2024]
#### 225.701-70 Exception.

DoD personnel are authorized to make emergency acquisitions in direct support of U.S. or allied forces deployed in military contingency, humanitarian, or peacekeeping operations in a country or region subject to economic sanctions administered by the Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control.

[68 FR 7441, Feb. 14, 2003]
September 1, 2016 

Ms. Jennifer Lee 

Counsel for Morris P. Herbert, Inc. 

P.O. Box 699 

Hammond, LA 70404 

Re: FAA-2015-3478 

Dear Ms. Lee: 

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and 

have determined that we will continue to process your petition. 

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov, we 

are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, 

Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 107 (www.faa.gov/uas) will satisfy your request. We have determined that 

your request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your 

petition for exemption. 

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will 

publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments, if we have 

not done so already. 

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst
225.7003-1 Definitions. As used in this section— *Alloy* means a metal consisting of a mixture of a basic metallic element and one or more metallic, or non-metallic, alloying elements. ( 1 ) For alloys named by a single metallic element (*e.g.,* titanium alloy), it means that the alloy contains 50 percent or more of the named metal (by mass).
( 2 ) If two metals are specified in the name (*e.g.,* nickel-iron alloy), those metals are the two predominant elements in the alloy, and together they constitute 50 percent or more of the alloy (by mass).
*Automotive item* — ( 1 ) Means a self-propelled military transport tactical vehicle, primarily intended for use by military personnel or for carrying cargo, such as— ( i ) A high-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle;
( ii ) An armored personnel carrier; or
( iii ) A troop/cargo-carrying truckcar, truck, or van; and
( 2 ) Does not include— ( i ) A commercially available off-the-shelf vehicle; or
( ii ) Construction equipment (such as bulldozers, excavators, lifts, or loaders) or other self-propelled equipment (such as cranes or aircraft ground support equipment).
*Commercial derivative military article* means an item acquired by the Department of Defense that is or will be produced using the same production facilities, a common supply chain, and the same or similar production processes that are used for the production of articles predominantly used by the general public or by nongovernmental entities for purposes other than governmental purposes.
*Electronic component* means an item that operates by controlling the flow of electrons or other electrically charged particles in circuits, using interconnections of electrical devices such as resistors, inductors, capacitors, diodes, switches, transistors, or integrated circuits. The term does not include structural or mechanical parts of an assembly containing an electronic component and does not include any high performance magnets that may be used in the electronic component.
*High performance magnet* means a permanent magnet that obtains a majority of its magnetic properties from rare earth metals (such as samarium).
*Produce* means— ( 1 ) Atomization;
( 2 ) Sputtering; or
( 3 ) Final consolidation of non-melt derived metal powders.
*Specialty metal* means— ( 1 ) Steel— ( i ) With a maximum alloy content exceeding one or more of the following limits: manganese, 1.65 percent; silicon, 0.60 percent; or copper, 0.60 percent; or
( ii ) Containing more than 0.25 percent of any of the following elements: aluminum, chromium, cobalt, molybdenum, nickel, niobium (columbium), titanium, tungsten, or vanadium;
( 2 ) Metal alloys consisting of— ( i ) Nickel or iron-nickel alloys that contain a total of alloying metals other than nickel and iron in excess of 10 percent; or
( ii ) Cobalt alloys that contain a total of alloying metals other than cobalt and iron in excess of 10 percent;
( 3 ) Titanium and titanium alloys; or
( 4 ) Zirconium and zirconium alloys.
*Steel* means an iron alloy that includes between .02 and 2 percent carbon and may include other elements.
[74 FR 37636, July 29, 2009, as amended at 84 FR 72243, Dec. 31, 2019]
COURT OF APPEALS

S E C O N D D I S T R I C T O F T E X A S

CHIEF JUSTICE

 TERRIE LIVINGSTON

JUSTICES

 LEE ANN DAUPHINOT

 ANNE GARDNER

 SUE WALKER

 BILL MEIER

 LEE GABRIEL

 BONNIE SUDDERTH

TIM CURRY CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER

401 W. BELKNAP, SUITE 9000

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76196-0211

TEL: (817) 884-1900

FAX: (817) 884-1932

www.txcourts.gov/2ndcoa

CLERK 

 DEBRA SPISAK

CHIEF STAFF ATTORNEY

 LISA M. WEST

GENERAL COUNSEL

 CLARISSA HODGES

June 11, 2015

Lisa Mullen

3149 Lackland Rd., Ste. 102

Fort Worth, TX 76116

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Debra A. Windsor

Assistant District Attorney

401 W. Belknap St.

Fort Worth, TX 76196-0201

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 02-15-00087-CR, 02-15-00088-CR

Trial Court Case Number: 1384447D, 1384449D

Style: Desmond Lamar Davis

v.

The State of Texas

The reporter’s record has been filed under the date of Wednesday, June

10, 2015, in the above referenced causes.

The appellant’s brief is due Friday, July 10, 2015. See Tex. R. App. P.

38.6. You will be notified when the case is set for submission.

A party desiring oral argument must note that request on the outside cover

of the party's brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.7. If no oral argument is requested

by either party, the case may be submitted on the briefs.

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS COURT HAS ADOPTED THE

STANDARDS FOR APPELLATE CONDUCT, WHICH WERE ADOPTED AND

PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS AND THE TEXAS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ON FEBRUARY 1, 1999 BY

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET ORDER NO. 99-9012. Copies of the standards

are available from this office and appear on the court's website at

www.txcourts.gov/2ndcoa. Parties appearing before this court are expected

to adhere to these standards and non-compliance will be addressed by the

court accordingly.

FILE COPY
02-15-00087-CR

June 11, 2015

Page 2

Respectfully yours,

DEBRA SPISAK, CLERK

By: Karen Brown, Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
OCR Case Number 08-09-4026: The U.S. Department of Education  Office for Civil Rights (OCR), initiated a complaint investigation, subsequently  joined by the U.s. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (DOJ), into  the Arizona Department of Education’s (ADE’s) compliance with its legal obligation  to identify its English Language Learner (ELL) students.  OCR and DOJ investigated  complaints filed against ADE, alleging that, due to ADE’s mandated change to  the Home Language Survey (HLS) from a three-question to a one-question survey  (“What is the primary language of the student?”), students who are ELLs and  eligible to receive English language acquisition services were not being identified  and, consequently, not being served.  With the cooperation of ADE and Arizona  school districts, OCR and DOJ conducted an extensive investigation of ADE’s  policies and practices concerning the identification of ELL students.  We found  that ADE had violated both Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and its  implementing regulation) and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA)  by failing to timely identify and serve ELL students.  We determined that ADE’s  one-question HLS, even when supplemented by the teacher referral process, does  not comply with Title VI or the EEOA because these identification procedures  do not adequately identify and serve ELL students who need English language  development services and, moreover, unnecessarily delay their identification  and services.  Without admitting non-compliance with Federal civil rights laws,  on March 25, 2011, ADE voluntarily agreed to resolve this matter through a  Resolution Agreement, which, when fully implemented, will resolve the compliance  concerns.  Under the agreement, ADE has revoked its one-question HLS and its  accompanying teacher referral process and reinstated its three-question HLS  and prior practice of giving teachers more flexibility in referring students  to be evaluated for English proficiency.  ADE has agreed that an answer other  than English to any of the three questions on the HLS will trigger timely assessment  of the student’s English language proficiency.  To ensure that potential ELLs  who are now registering for the 2011-2012 school year are identified, ADE has  sent a directive to each of its local educational agencies informing them of  the reinstated three-question HLS, and explaining how to identify potential  ELL students among those students whose parents already completed the one-question  HLS.  ADE will also train the local education agencies regarding these changes  and monitor them over the next school year to ensure that they are appropriately  administering the three-question HLS.  As a result of the settlement agreement,  newly enrolled students in Arizona schools who are ELLs will be timely identified,  and students who were improperly identified as non-ELL students will be identified  and offered ELL services to which they are entitled under Federal civil rights  laws.***Read  the Resolution Letter*** | ***Readthe Resolution Agreement***

Top
Exhibit 23(a)

                                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Forms S-3 (Nos. 33-68762, 33-74638, 33-86720, 33-91918, 33-93466,
33-64289, 333-15165, 333-26155, 333-46818, 333-47359 and 333-80813) and Forms
S-8 (Nos. 333-38373, 333-96435 and 333-82046) of Pharmos Corporation of our
report dated February 8, 2002 relating to the financial statements, which
appears in this Form 10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
New York, New York
April 11, 2002
Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 53 Filed: 11/08/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:726
Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 53 Filed: 11/08/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:727
Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 53 Filed: 11/08/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:728
# ORIGINAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 19-0734 WILLIAM SCOTT ROGERS,individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. LEWIS & CLARK COUNTY,LEWIS & CLARK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE,LEO C. DUTTON in his capacity as Lewis & Clark County Sheriff, JASON GRIMMIS,in his capacity as Lewis & Clark County Undersheriffand former Captain for the Lewis & Clark County Detention Center, ALAN HUGHES,in his capacity as Captain for the Lewis & Clark Detention Center, JOHN and JANE DOES 1 through 50,in their capacity as Employees ofthe Lewis & Clark County Detention Center,

Defendants and Appellees. 

# FILED JUN 24 2020 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

Pursuant to the Beebe & Flowers Law Firm's motion to withdraw as counsel for Appellants, and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED. The Court accepts the appearance ofDoubek,Pyfer & Storrar, PLLP as counsel for Appellants. DATED this 

# al day of June, 2020. For the Court,

ChiefJustice 06/25/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0734
#### 25.602-2 Buy American statute.

Except as provided in 25.603, use only unmanufactured construction material mined or produced in the United States, as required by the Buy American statute or, if trade agreements apply, unmanufactured construction material mined or produced in a designated country may also be used.

[75 FR 53165, Aug. 30, 2010, as amended at 79 FR 24209, Apr. 29, 2014]
**FULBRIGHT-HAYS DOCTORAL DISSERTATION RESEARCH ABROAD PROGRAM FY 2020 SUMMARY DATA**

## **FY 2020 DDRA Applicants**

**FY 2020 DDRA Selected Fellows**

**FY 2020 Data by Type of Institution**

**FY 2020 Data by World Area and Gender**

**FY 1964-2020 Number of DDRA Fellowships Awarded by World Area**

*Note:  Multi-country designation is obsolete.  Now, principal country of research is designated.

**FY 2020 DDRA Funding by State**

	Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Program

	FY 2020 Summary Data	

2

**FY 2020 DDRA Funding by World Area**

**AFRICA TOTAL: 18 Fellows, $$602,193**

**CENTRAL/EASTERN EUROPE AND EURASIA TOTAL:  4 Fellows, $149,660**

**EAST ASIA TOTAL:  11 Fellows, $636,217**

****

**NEAR EAST TOTAL:   15 Fellows, $710,889**

**SOUTHEAST ASIA TOTAL:  	7 Fellows, $247,636**

### **SOUTH ASIA TOTAL:  16 Fellows, $597,660**

### **WESTERN HEMISPHERE TOTAL:  41 Fellows, $1,297,836**

**Number of Fellowship Awards: 112**

**Total funds Awarded: $4,268,533**

**FY 2020 FULBRIGHT-HAYS DOCTORAL DISSERTATION RESEARCH ABROAD (DDRA) PROGRAM FELLOWS**

**Fellows Researching in Africa**

### **Fellows Researching in Central/Eastern Europe and Eurasia**

**Fellows Researching in the East Asia**

****

**Fellows Researching in Near East**

****

**Fellows Researching in South Asia**

### **Fellows Researching in Southeast Asia**

### **Fellows Researching in the Western Hemisphere**
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronald R. Denzel, Appellant.

Motion granted to extent that appeal may be prosecuted on original papers, five typewritten briefs, John M. Tubridy, Esq., assigned as counsel; otherwise motion denied.
PUBLIC LAW 111–159—APR. 26, 2010 124 STAT. 1123 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4887: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010): 

Mar. 20, considered and passed House. 

Apr. 12, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–159 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that health coverage 

provided by the Department of Defense is treated as minimal essential coverage. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘TRICARE Affirmation Act’’. 

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HEALTH COVERAGE AS MINIMAL ESSENTIAL COVERAGE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5000A(f)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 1501(b) of the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act, is amended— 

(1) by striking clause (iv) and inserting the following new 

clause: 

‘‘(iv) medical coverage under chapter 55 of title 

10, United States Code, including coverage under the 

TRICARE program;’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (v); 

(3) by striking the period at the end of clause (vi) and 

inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

(4) by inserting after clause (vi) the following new clause: 

‘‘(vii) the Nonappropriated Fund Health Benefits 

Program of the Department of Defense, established 

under section 349 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103–337; 

10 U.S.C. 1587 note).’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section 

shall take effect as if included in section 1501(b) of the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act and shall be executed immediately after the amendments made by such section 1501(b). 

Approved April 26, 2010. 

26 USC 5000A 

note. 

Ante, p. 244. 

26 USC 1 note. 

TRICARE 

Affirmation Act. 

Apr. 26, 2010 

[H.R. 4887] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with PUBLIC LAWS