alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 1951

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Some of the exhibits referenced in this part 1951 are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Exhibits are available in any Rural Development office.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1951 appear at 80 FR 9890-9894, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1951.211 Refinancing requirements.

In accordance with the CONACT, Rural Development requires for most loans covered by this subpart that if at any time it shall appear to the Government that the borrower is able to refinance the amount of the indebtedness then outstanding, in whole or in part, by obtaining a loan for such purposes from responsible cooperative or private credit sources, at reasonable rates and terms for loans for similar purposes and periods of time, the borrower will, upon request of the Government, apply for and accept such loan in sufficient amount to repay the Government and will take all such actions as may be required in connection with such loan. Applicable requirements are set forth in subpart F of part 1951 of this chapter. A civil rights impact analysis is required.

[55 FR 4399, Feb. 8, 1990, as amended at 63 FR 16089, Apr. 2, 1998]
§ 1209.72 Proceedings after termination. ( a ) Upon the termination of this subpart, the Council shall recommend not more than five of its members to the Secretary to serve as trustees for the purpose of liquidating the affairs of the Council. Such persons, upon designation by the Secretary, shall become trustees of all the funds and property owned, in the possession of, or under the control of the Council, including any claims unpaid or property not delivered, or any other claim existing at the time of such termination.
( b ) The trustees shall: ( 1 ) Continue in such capacity until discharged by the Secretary;
( 2 ) Carry out the obligations of the Council under any contract or agreement entered into by it under this subpart;
( 3 ) From time to time account for all receipts and disbursements, and deliver all property on hand, together with all books and records of the Council and of the trustees, to such persons as the Secretary may direct; and
( 4 ) Upon the request of the Secretary, execute such assignments or other instruments necessary or appropriate to vest in such persons full title and right to all of the funds, property, and claims vested in the Council or the trustees under this subpart.
( c ) Any person to whom funds, property, or claims have been transferred or delivered under this subpart shall be subject to the same obligations imposed upon the Council and upon the trustees.
( d ) Any residual funds not required to defray the necessary expenses of liquidation shall be turned over to the Secretary to be used, to the extent practicable, in the interest of continuing one or more of the promotion, research, consumer information, or industry information programs, plans, or projects authorized under this subpart.
#### §§ 1737.81-1737.89 [Reserved]
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 233 -CR

Lar r y P hill ips , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 331S T JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-06 -20 0770 , HO NORAB LE B OB PERK INS , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury found appe llant L arr

y Phill ips guilty

of third-off

ense f elony theft, for which it assessed a te rm of twenty -one months in state jail and a $1,500 fine. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 31.03(a) , (e) (4)( D) (W es t S upp. 2006). I n a sing le point of err or, appe llant contends that the district court did not ha

ve jurisdiction be cause the indictment did not alleg e a f elony offe nse. Ther e is no merit to this contention.

A p e rs on c omm its a sta te ja il fe lon y if he ste a ls pr op e rt y wo rt h $1 ,5 00 or

mor e or if he stea ls p ro p er t y worth less than $1,500 a nd has at lea st two previous theft off enses. Id

. § 31.03(e) (4)( A), (D ). The indictment in this cause alleg ed that appe llant stole a wristwatc h having a value of less than $50 a nd that he had the requisite pre vious theft convictions. Appellant’s2

arg ument, first adva

nced in a motion to quash the indictment, is t hat bec ause the stolen watch w as
a ll e g e d to b e w o r th le s s th a n $ 5 0 , th e in d ic tm e n t a ll e g e d o n ly a mi s d e me anor. See id

. § 31.03(e) (1)( A).

When presente d with this arg ument at the hear ing on the motion to quash, the district

c ou rt re pli e d, “ [B ]y

say ing the va lue of

the pr op e rt

y wa s $ 50 or

le ss, the y a re sa y ing t hat it is le ss t h an 1 , 5 0 0 ri gh t ? ” T h e co u rt ad d ed , “I m ea n , wh en t h ey s ay 5 0 o r l es s , I ca n t ak e j u d i ci al kn o wl ed ge of the fac t tha t tha t is less than 1,500, rig ht? ” The court conclude d, “[I ]t does see m to me they are alleg ing tha t it is less than 1,500. And t hen that coupled with the two prior thef t alleg ations—theft convictions I think does raise tha t up to a state jail felony .”

We ag ree with the trial court’ s analy sis. By al l egi ng that the stolen proper ty was worth less than $50, the i ndictment nece ssarily alleg ed that the stolen proper ty was wor th less than $1 ,500

. W it h the fu

rt he r a lle g a tio n o f t

wo pr e vio us the ft

c on vic tio ns , th e ind ic tme nt a de qu a te ly alleg ed third-of

fense felony

theft under

section 31.03(e )(4) (D). T he point of er ror is over

ruled. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: Mar ch 13, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh
From: Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Steven Silverman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte 

Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 05/11/2012 05:48 PM

Subject: Portland Cement DRAFT Technical Support Document

Hello CourtneyPlease find attached our DRAFT TSD with another file of appendices. On Monday, I will send you an 

additional document that covers a bounding analysis we did that informed development of our limits 

relative to removing all kilns which could remotely be considered CISWI kilns.

THANK YOU!

(See attached file: Portland Cement TSD DRAFT_May 11 2012.doc)

(See attached file: (2)Appendices_09MAY12_revised may 11.xlsx)

Sharon V. Nizich

Minerals and Manufacturing Group (MMG)

Sector Policies and Programs Division

OAQPS - US EPA

RTP NC 27711

919/541-2825
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.527 [Reserved]
EXHIBIT 4.4



 










Exhibit 4.4




Summary of Employment Arrangements




between Bayer Aktiengesellschaft




and Werner Wenning






Term: W. Wenning was appointed Chairman of the Board of Management of the Company by the
Supervisory Board effective April 27, 2002. The term will expire on January 31, 2007.


Compensation: The aggregate remuneration of W. Wenning for 2004 is comprised of the
following elements:



Base salary: EUR 711,359. W. Wenning also received remuneration in kind totaling EUR
29,861 and consisting mainly of amounts such as the value assigned to the use of a company car for
taxation purposes.



Fixed supplement: EUR 298,632



Variable bonus: EUR 1,352,520 (determined by attainment of the group gross cashflow target)



Stock option rights: W. Wenning received a total of 11,820 option rights on the basis of
his own investments. The options from this tranche had a market value of EUR 372,685 at the
closing date.




Retirement: W. Wenning is entitled to receive pension up from the age of 60. The
yearly pension entitlement is based on at least 30% of the sum of the last yearly base salary and
fixed supplement. This percentage increases over time depending on years of service as a Board
member and determines the final target pension level which is capped at 80%. These amounts are in
addition to any amounts received as a result of his participation in Bayer’s Employee Pension Plan
(See Item 6).
#### § 220.23 Seamless Summer Option non-congregate meal service.

A school food authority participating in the National School Lunch Program's Seamless Summer Option, and which is approved to offer a non-congregate meal service, must comply with the provisions specified in § 210.34 of this chapter.

[88 FR 90347, Dec. 29, 2023]
EXHIBIT 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of China Resources Development, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,Tam Cheuk Ho, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ WONG WAH ON EDWARD 
| | Wong Wah On Edward     
| | Chief Financial Officer



May 30, 2008

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NO. 12-18-00308-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MARQUEL JERMON SCOTT, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 7TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Marquel Jermon Scott filed a notice 

of appeal to change the denial of his motion for DNA testing. The trial court denied Appellant’s 

motion on July 25, 2018. Under the rules of appellate procedure, the notice of appeal must be filed 

within thirty days after the trial court enters an appealable order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). 

The record does not indicate that Appellant filed a motion that extended the filing deadline. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(2). Therefore, Appellant’s notice of appeal was due to have been filed no 

later than August 24, 2018. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on November 5. 

On November 5, this Court notified Appellant that the information received in this appeal 

does not show the jurisdiction of this Court, i.e., there was no timely filed notice of appeal or 

motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2, 26.3. We further 

notified Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed unless the information was amended on or 

before November 15 to show the Court’s jurisdiction. This deadline has passed and Appellant 

failed to respond to the November 5 notice.

Because this Court is not authorized to extend the time for perfecting an appeal except as 

provided by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); see also Olivo v. 

State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). 
2

Opinion delivered November 28, 2018.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

NOVEMBER 28, 2018

NO. 12-18-00308-CR

MARQUEL JERMON SCOTT,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-0154-13)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same being 

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that it is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the 

appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that this 

appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be 

certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
1 Ogulei, David

From: Morgan, Andrea Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 3:11 PM To: kathyandria@gmail.com; klogansmith@moenviron.org; e jhubertz@wulaw.wustl.edu; amyfunk@illinois.edu; kmiller@wulaw.wustl.edu; davi d.klarich@veoliaes.com; Dennis.warchol@VeoliaES.com; Doug.harris@veoliaes.c om Cc: Ogulei, David; Damico, Genevieve; Woolums, Jane Subject: Development of a plan for public participation for upcoming actions regarding Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C.

Everyone,

In January 2013, EPA proposed to reopen a Clean Air Act Title V operating permit issued in 2008 to Veo lia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. (Veolia) to, among othe r things, add operating parameter limits and enhanc ed monitoring provisions to the permit requirements. After taking comment on the draft permit, because o f the timing in relationship to the expiration of Veolia’ s operating permit and the regulatory requirement f or Veolia to perform compliance testing, EPA decided instead to incorporate revisions into Veolia’s permit at renewal. Therefore, within the next several months , EPA will be providing for public comment a draft of the permit which EPA proposes to issue to Veolia. EPA also will provide a response to the comments receiv ed on the permit proposed in January 2013 at the time we public notice the draft Title V renewal permit.

As with the January 2013 draft permit, we would lik e to develop a plan for public participation to ens ure that community members and interested parties have meani ngful involvement in the permitting process. We would like to host a call to discuss how you though t the permitting process ran last time, any changes or improvements you think could be made to the public participation process, and whether there was anythi ng we did that was not particularly useful in aiding c ommunity members’ understanding of the process or t he draft permit itself. While we may not be able to a ct on all of the suggestions, we will consider all of them. Please note, however, that we will not discu ss during that call any issues regarding the substance of the permit that we are developing.

We would like to hold this call sometime between Ma rch 24 and April 3, 2014. If you are interested in participating, please provide me, by the close of b usiness on Monday, March 17, times that you would b e available to participate in such a call. We will s chedule the call to accommodate as many interested parties as possible.

Thank you for your time and we look forward to your suggestions.

Andrea Morgan

Andrea Morgan Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 | Air & Radiation Division Phone: (312) 353-6058 | Fax: (312) 692-2920
#### Milo R Marshall, as Executor of Nellie B. Marshall, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v. Holiday on Ice, Inc., Appellant.

Order entered September 8, 1966, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements. Order entered January 27, 1967, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, to the extent of granting motion to discontinue with prejudice to the commencement of any further action in the State of New York but without prejudice to any action in any foreign State. (See *Brown*v. *Bullock,*17 A D 2d 424.) Concur—Stevens, J. P., Eager, Tilzer, McNally and Witmer, JJ.
#### Hermann P. Wostl, Respondent-Appellant, v Frances V. Wostl, Appellant-Respondent.

Order of February 20, 1980 unanimously affirmed; order of December 17, 1979 unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The order dated December 17, 1979 is modified by striking decretal paragraphs first, second, third, fifth, seventh, eighth and ninth, and otherwise affirmed. We find insufficient basis for holding that appellant-respondent’s conduct was contumacious and calculated to defeat or impede the rights of petitioner-respondent to exercise overnight or weekend visitation with the parties’ daughter, Kendall (age 5, 6 and 7 years during the period in question) pursuant to the Connecticut divorce decree as modified by the Family Court order of July 15, 1976. There is no evidence in the record of any instance when appellant-respondent refused or interfered with visitation. Nor is there any indication of any conduct calculated to dissuade *1014Kendall from accompanying her father. While appellant-respondent concededly refused to force Kendall to stay overnight with her father, there is evidence that she said to Kendall: "Why don’t you try it? You don’t know if you don’t like it if you never go.” We agree with Family Court that appellant-respondent has a duty to encourage Kendall to comply with the visitation provisions of the order (see *Berkman v Berkman,*57 AD2d 542, app dsmd 42 NY2d 910; *Goldstein v Goldstein,*53 AD2d 683) and that the evidence establishes that respondent-appellant has not fully met that obligation. We do not agree, however, that the appellant-respondent’s conduct was contumacious particularly since there was no showing of any prior judicial effort to obtain voluntary compliance with the order or of any judicial proceeding based on an alleged violation or to compel compliance from the date of the order, July 15, 1976, until the date of the hearing in September, 1979 except for the instant proceeding which was commenced on June 9, 1977.. We are sympathetic with the efforts of Family Court to insure full compliance with the visitation terms in the future and, accordingly, affirm certain of the provisions of the order which are designed to achieve that end including the directions that Kendall should have visitation counseling, that the matter should be resubmitted to Family Court upon three days’ notice in the event of a violation or difficulty in exercising the order and that the payments of alimony and support in the future should be dependent upon the proper exercise of visitation. We affirm the award of counsel fees to appellant-respondent in connection with the proceeding in Family Court and also affirm the order denying her request for counsel fees and costs for this appeal. Her renewed motion for such fees and costs is denied. (Appeals from orders of Monroe County Family Court—contempt.) Present—Hancock, Jr., J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2112 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2112

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
     at 787 State Route 17M in Monroe, New York, as the ``National 
  Clandestine Service of the Central Intelligence Agency NCS Officer 
               Gregg David Wenzel Memorial Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 22, 2013

  Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York (for himself, Mr. Higgins, Mr. 
  King of New York, Mr. Maffei, Mr. Owens, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Grimm, Mr. 
Hanna, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Collins of New York, Ms. Meng, Mr. 
Engel, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Tonko, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of 
  New York, Mr. Gibson, Ms. Slaughter, and Mr. Israel) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
     at 787 State Route 17M in Monroe, New York, as the ``National 
  Clandestine Service of the Central Intelligence Agency NCS Officer 
               Gregg David Wenzel Memorial Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. NATIONAL CLANDESTINE SERVICE OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE 
              AGENCY NCS OFFICER GREGG DAVID WENZEL MEMORIAL POST 
              OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 787 State Route 17M in Monroe, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``National Clandestine Service of the Central 
Intelligence Agency NCS Officer Gregg David Wenzel Memorial Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``National 
Clandestine Service of the Central Intelligence Agency NCS Officer 
Gregg David Wenzel Memorial Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
2006-0324.

#### State v. Clevenger.

Trumbull App. No. 2004-T-0130, 2006-Ohio-128.

Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.

O’Connor, J., not participating.
EXHIBIT 23.1a

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No.333-85555) pertaining to NexPub, Inc.'s 1999 Stock Incentive Plan
of our report dated February 6, 2001 (with respect to Note C, February 23, 2001)
on our audits of the financial statements as of December 21, 2000 and for the
years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999 which report is included in the annual
report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2000.



Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP

New York, New York
April 2, 2001
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR THEN
ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              42
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,867
<ALLOWANCES>                                       126
<INVENTORY>                                        819
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,692
<PP&E>                                           9,166
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,221
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,963
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,717
<BONDS>                                          4,068
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            40
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,137
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,963
<SALES>                                         10,186
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,395
<CGS>                                            7,616
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,658
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 461
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    276
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                276
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       276
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07


</TABLE>