alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J A M ES ED W A RD PRO CTO R, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. S U S A N M . S P A R K E , L aw L i brary S up e rv is o r ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 15596 D . C. N o . 3 : 1 0 - c v - 0 0 7 8 6 - RCJ - V PC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da R obe rtC . J one s , C hi e f

Judge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 6, 2012 ** B e f o r e : B . F L E T C H E R , R E I N H A R D T , an dT A S H I M A , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . J a m e s E dw a r d P r oc t or , aN e va das t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng i n t e r f e r e n c e w i th h i s a c c e s s t o th e c o u rt s . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. 

# FI LED MA R 15 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 15596 2 § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o ad is m is s a l u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) . B arre n v. H arr i ngton , 1 5 2 F .3 d1 1 9 3 , 1 1 9 4 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( o r d e r ) . W e v a c a te a n dr e m an d . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt ru le dth a t P r o c to rc o u ldn o t s ta te a n a c c e s s - to - c o u rts c la im b e c au s e “a n in m a te d o e s n o t h a v e ac o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t o f a c c e s s to th e c o u rts to appeala deni alof a habe as p e titio n .” R e c e n tly , in S ilv a v . D i V itto r io , 658 F . 3d 1090 ( 9th C i r . 2011) , w e he l d “ tha tpr i s one r s ha ve ar i ghtunde rthe F i r s ta nd F ourt e e nth A m e ndm e nt s t o l i t i ga t e c l a i m s c ha l l e ngi ng the i rs e nt e nc e s orthe c o n d itio n s o f

th e irc o n f

in e m e n t to c o n c lu s io n w ith o u t act i ve i nter f er ence bypr i s on offi ci al s. ” I

d. at11 03 (e xp l ai ni ng the di ff er ence betw ee n the “ ri gh tt o ass i st ance ” a nd “ i nt e r f

e r e nc e ” a na l y s e s f

orapr i s one r ’ s a c c e s s - t o- c ourt s c l a i m ) . B e c aus e the di stri ctcourtdi d n othave the benefi tof Si lva w he n i tdi s m i s s e d P r oc t or ’ s a c t i on, w e v a c a te a n dr e m a n df o rf u rth e rp r o c e e d in g s . P r o c to rs h a ll b e a rh is o w n c o s ts o n ap p e a l. V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.
§ 60.122 Production step. *Production step* means in the case of: ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) Farm-raised Fish and Shellfish: Hatched, raised, harvested, and processed.
( c ) Wild Fish and Shellfish: Harvested and processed.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 9, 

2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-19-00066-CV

SANDRA GEIS, Appellant 

V.

MADISUN KENZI GEIS AND PAIGE LAUREN GEIS, Appellees 

On Appeal from the 190th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-78903 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This is an attempted appeal from a judgment signed October 24, 2018 

granting summary judgment. The record reflects that this is an interlocutory order. 

The order does not address appellees’ request for attorney’s fees. 

 Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. 

Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When orders do not dispose of 

all pending parties and claims, the orders remain interlocutory and unappealable 

until final judgment is rendered unless a statutory exception applies. Bally Total 
2 

Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); see also Fleming & 

Associates, L.L.P. v. Kirklin, 479 S.W.3d 458, 461 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) (per curiam) (“A summary judgment that does not dispose 

of attorneys’ fees is not a final, appealable order.”). 

The order on summary judgment does not dispose of all parties and all 

claims and no statute explicitly provides for an appeal from this interlocutory 

order. Accordingly, this court does not have jurisdiction over the summary 

judgment appeal. The appeal is ordered dismissed. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Spain.
52.247-47 Evaluation-F.o.b. Origin.       As prescribed in 47.305-3(f)(2), insert the following provision. When it is appropriate to use methods other than land transportation in evaluating offers; e.g.,air, pipeline, barge, or ocean tanker, modify the provision accordingly.          Evaluation-F.o.b. Origin (June 2003)                                       (a) 						            The Government normally uses land methods of transportation by regulated common carrier for shipment within the contiguous United States.                                          (b) 						            To evaluate offers, the Government will consider only these methods to establish the cost of transportation between offeror’s shipping point and destination (tentative or firm, whichever is applicable) in the contiguous United States.                                          (c) 						            This transportation cost will be added to the offer price to determine the Government’s overall cost.                                          (d) 						            When tentative destinations are indicated, the Government will use them only for evaluation purposes. The Government has the right to use any other means of transportation or any other destination at the time of shipment.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.247 [Reserved]
Editorial Note on Part 869
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 869 appear at 84 FR 45646, Aug. 30, 2019.

§ 869.5 Penalties. If a person fails to comply with any requirement of the Act, the regulations set forth in this part or any applicable licensing or provider agreement, AMS may assess, after an opportunity for a hearing as provided in § 869.8, a civil penalty: ( a ) Of not more than the amount specified in § 3.91(b)(10)(i) of this title per violation, if an agricultural product is not involved in the violation; or
( b ) Of not more than 100 percent of the value of the agricultural product, if an agricultural product is involved in the violation.
[67 FR 50783, Aug. 5, 2002, as amended at 75 FR 17560, Apr. 7, 2010. Redesignated and amended at 84 FR 45645, 45646 Aug. 30, 2019]
52.209-11 Representation by Corporations Regarding Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction under any Federal Law.       As prescribed in 9.104-7(d), insert the following provision:          Representation by Corporations Regarding Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction under any Federal Law (Feb 2016)                                       (a)                    						            As required by sections 744 and 745 of Division E of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235), and similar provisions, if contained in subsequent appropriations acts, the Government will not enter into a contract with any corporation that–                                                         (1)                          								                Has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, where the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, unless an agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that suspension or debarment is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government; or                                                            (2)                          								                Was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless an agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that this action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.                                                                             (b)                    						            The Offeror represents that–                                                         (1) It is □ is not □ a corporation that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability; and                                                            (2) It is □ is not □ a corporation that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under a Federal law within the preceding 24 months.                                                                    (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 52.209 [Reserved]
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2404 

To extend the duty suspension on o-tert-Butylcyclohexanol. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 13, 2006 

Mr. DEMINT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the duty suspension on o-tert-Butylcyclohexanol. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. O-TERT-BUTYLCYCLOHEXANOL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.05.02 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 o-tert-Butylcyclohexanol) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking the article description and in8 serting ‘‘o-tert-Butylcyclohexanol (CAS No. 53860– 

9 35–8) (Cyclohexanol, 2-(1,1-dimethyl-) (provided for 

10 in subheading 2906.19.50)’’; and 

11 (2) by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting 

12 ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 2404 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 subsection (a) apply to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
#### § 798.2 Public inspection and copying.

5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2) requires that certain materials be made available for public inspection and copying. Members of the public may request access to such materials maintained by FSA and/or CCC at the Office of the Director, Information Division, Farm Service Agency, Room 3608 South Building, P.O. Box 2415, Washington, DC 20013, between the hours of 8:15 and 4:45 p.m., Monday through Friday.

[50 FR 53259, Dec. 31, 1985]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES PETTY, #124 252, *

Plaintiff, *

v. * Case No. 2:06-CV-639-WKW

RAY B. FINEDOR, et al, *

Defendants. *

MOTION TO DISMISS THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS 

AND OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION

Comes now the Defendant, Edward O. Hardy, by and through his counsel, and

objects to the Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time in that the Court was quite

clear in the previous Order that the deadline for filing was to be on or before January 3,

2007; otherwise, the case would be treated as dismissed. 

Therefore, we are questing that this Honorable Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s

claims as he has failed to comply with the Court directive, namely in timely filings. 

 Respectfully submitted this 4th day of January, 2007. 

 s/ Clifton F. Hastings 

Clifton F. Hastings (HAS014)

Attorney for Defendant Edward O. Hardy

CERVERA, RALPH & REEVES, LLC

914 South Brundidge Street

P. O. Box 325

Troy, Alabama 36081

(334) 566-0116

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 24 Filed 01/04/2007 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify a copy of the foregoing Answer has been electronically served

upon the following on the 4th day of January, 2007 by CM/ECF:

Steven Mallette Sirmon 

Alabama Board of Pardons & Paroles 

301 South Ripley St 

PO Box 302405 

Montgomery, AL 36130 

steven.sirmon@paroles.alabama.gov

and I hereby certify a copy of the foregoing Answer has been served upon the

following by US Mail on the 4th day of January, 2007:

James Petty

AIS #139044

Easterling Correctional Facility

200 Wallace Drive

Clio, Alabama 36017-2615

 s/ Clifton F. Hastings 

Clifton F. Hastings

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 24 Filed 01/04/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 8-3 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 8-3 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 8-3 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2706 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2706

     To suspend temporarily the duty on Dimethyl Disulfide (DMDS).

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 3, 2006

 Mr. Santorum introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend temporarily the duty on Dimethyl Disulfide (DMDS).

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

SECTION 1. DIMETHYL DISULFIDE (DMDS).

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.29.32        Dimethyl Disulfide      Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           (DMDS) (CAS No. 624-                                              31/2009          ''
                           92-0) (provided for                                                                 .
                           in subheading
                           2930.90.90)..........

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 231 (Thursday, December 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75185-75186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30281]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 1205-9]


Certain Festive Articles: Recommendations for Modifying the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Change in date for transmitting recommendations to the 
President.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission has changed the date on which it intends to 
report its recommendations to the President in this matter from 
November 29, 2010, to December 13, 2010, to allow more time to complete 
the report, including its recommendations.

DATES: December 13, 2010: Transmittal of recommendations to the 
President.

ADDRESSES: All Commission offices, including the Commission's hearing 
rooms, are located in the United States International Trade Commission 
Building, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC. The public record for this 
collection of proposals may be viewed on the Commission's electronic 
docket (EDIS) at http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/edis.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Beck, Director, Office of Tariff 
Affairs and Trade Agreements (202-205-2603, fax 202-205-2616, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f39792859a97dd91969098b386809a8790dd949c85"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e88c899e818cc68a8d8b83a89d9b819c8bc68f879e">[email protected]</span></a>). The media should contact Margaret O'Laughlin, 
Office of External Affairs (202-205-1819, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#016c607366607364752f6e6d607466696d686f4174726875622f666e77"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1974786b7e786b7c6d377675786c7e71757077596c6a706d7a377e766f">[email protected]</span></a>). Hearing-impaired individuals may obtain 
information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal 
at 202-205-1810. General information concerning the Commission may also 
be obtained by accessing its Internet Web site at http://www.usitc.gov. 
Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in 
gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the 
Secretary at 202-205-2000.
    Background: Notice of institution of the investigation and 
opportunity to comment on proposed recommendations was published in the 
Federal Register on September 20, 2010 (75 FR 57293). The period for 
filing written submissions closed on October 22, 2010.


[[Page 75186]]


    Issued: November 24, 2010.

    By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-30281 Filed 12-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 799.40 Purpose of an EA. ( a ) FSA prepares an EA to determine whether a proposed action would significantly affect the environment, and to consider the potential impacts of reasonable alternatives and the potential mitigation measures to the alternatives and proposed action.
( b ) FSA will prepare a PEA to determine if proposed actions that are broad in scope or similar in nature have cumulative significant environmental impacts, although the impacts of the proposed actions may be individually insignificant.
( c ) The result of the EA process will be either a FONSI or a determination that an EIS is required. FSA may also determine that a proposed action will significantly affect the environment without first preparing an EA; in that case, an EIS is required.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3038 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Vulkazon AFS/LG. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2006 

Mr. GRAHAM introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Vulkazon AFS/LG. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. VULKAZON AFS/LG. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.11.56 Pentaerythritolbis(tetrahydrobenzaldehyde acetal) (CAS 

No. 6600–31–3) (provided for in subheading 2932.99.90) ................................ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


sroberts on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 3038 IS 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
# Subpart 5649.1 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES

**Parent topic:**Part 5649 - TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS

## 5649.101 Authorities and Responsibilities.

(f) Contracting officers shall coordinate termination actions as necessary with the servicing Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) office and request in writing that DCMA perform the Termination Contracting Officer (TCO) functions in accordance with FAR 49.105.
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Elementary Secondary EducationFaculty DevelopmentPeer EvaluationPersonnel EvaluationProfessional DevelopmentTeacher Improvement

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
#### INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 241, Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN MARITIME SYSTEMS AND SENSORS (formerly Naval Electronic and Surveillance Systems-Surface Systems).

No. 06-3450.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) June 29, 2007.

Filed: July 19, 2007.

David A. Gaudioso, Meranze *&*Katz, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant.

Gary J. Lesneski, Archer *&*Greiner, Haddonfíeld, NJ, for Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Sensors (formerly Naval Electronic and Surveillance Systems-Surface Systems).

Before: BARRY, FUENTES, and GARTH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

GARTH, Circuit Judge.

The appeal taken by the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO, Local 241 (“the union”) challenged the decision of Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Sensors (“Lockheed Martin”) to bring third-party employees into its Moorestown, New Jersey facility to perform approximately 640 hours of Drafter Designer-Electrical work. The union asserted that Lockheed Martin’s action violated the parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) and sought to have the dispute submitted to arbitration. Alternatively, in the event it was held that the dispute was not arbitrable per the terms of the CBA, the union argued that Lockheed Martin’s decision to engage subcontractors to perform the work rather than to recall Christopher Vansaghi, a union member and employee on layoff, violated the CBA.

The District Court carefully reviewed the arguments of counsel and the CBA provisions at issue and concluded in a well-*135reasoned opinion that the grievance did involve subcontracting and thus was not arbitrable. It also held that Lockheed Martin had not violated the CBA by subcontracting rather than recalling a worker on layoff.

For the reasons so ably expressed by the District Court judge in his opinion dated June 21, 2006, 2006 WL 1697179, we will affirm the judgment in favor of Lockheed Martin.
Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 36 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 36 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 36 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 36 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 4 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 36 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 36 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 36 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 36-2 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 36-2 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 36-2 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 36-2 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 36-2 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 5 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 36-3 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 1 of 1