alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:06-cv-00668-MHT-DRB Document 7 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00668-MHT-DRB Document 7 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00668-MHT-DRB Document 7 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 3 of 3
§ 1017.7 Criteria. To be identified as UCNI, the information must meet each of the following criteria: ( a ) The information must be Government information as defined in § 1017.4;
( b ) The information must concern atomic energy defense programs as defined in § 1017.4;
( c ) The information must fall within the scope of at least one of the three subject areas eligible to be UCNI in § 1017.8;
( d ) The information must meet the adverse effect test described in § 1017.10; and
( e ) The information must not be exempt from being UCNI under § 1017.11.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 20
- 00403
- CV

Monica Weatherly, Appellant

v. Demetrius Lincoln, Appellee

FROM THE 423RD DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY NO. 423
- 2204, THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER DARROW DUGGAN, JUDGE PRESIDI N G

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

The clerk’s record in this appeal was due for filing in this Court on November 5,
2020

. On November 4, 2020, we notified appellant that the Court had received notice that no payment , or arra n gements for payment , had been made for the trial clerk’s fee for preparing the
clerk’s record. The notice requested that appellant make arrangements for the clerk’s record and submit a status report regarding this appeal by November 16 . Further, the not i ce advised appellant that h er failure to comply with this request could result in the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a status report or otherwise responded to
this Court’s notice, and the clerk’s record h as not been filed. This Court had also re ceived notice
that no request for the repor ter ’s record ha s b een made.

If a trial

- court clerk fails to file the clerk’s record due to an appellant’s failure to pay or make arrangements to pay for the clerk’s f e e for preparing the record, the appellate court2

may dis miss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). In this case, appellant has not established
that she is entitl e d to proceed without payment of cost s. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145 . Because appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

________________________ __________________ Darlene Byr ne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Baker and Smith
Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
Filed: February 3, 20 21
# Subpart 1513.6 - Actions at or Below the Micro-Purchase Threshold

**Parent topic:**PART 1513 - SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES
|  |  | [if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have  reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection  (FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the  FDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's  suite of cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S.  Government Publications.
 
Title: Best  practices for effecting the rehabilitation of affordable housing
SuDoc Number: HH 14.2:AF  2/V.1-2
Item Number:  0599-Q
Volume 1 Part 1
Volume 1 Part 2
Volume 1 Part 3
Volume 2 Part 1
Volume 2 Part 2
Volume 2 Part 3
Volume 2 Part 4
A service of the Superintendent of Documents,  U.S. Government Printing Office..

 

Last updated:  December 15,  2016  Page Name:  https://permanent.fdlp.gov/lps76778/index.htm
  |
|--|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3398 

To suspend temporarily the duty on synthetic indigo powder. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 6, 2006 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on synthetic indigo powder. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SYNTHETIC INDIGO POWDER. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.39.13 Synthetic indigo powder; 3H-Indol-3-one, 

2-(1,3-dihydro-3-oxo-2H-indol-2-ylidene)- 

1,2-dihydro- (CAS No. 482–89–3) (provided for in subheading 3204.15.10) ....... 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 PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•S 3398 IS 

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-5214

_____________________________

BRANDON D. BIZIER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Russell Healey, Judge.

March 12, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, BILBREY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Brandon D. Bizier, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 9
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 9
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 9
 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 9
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 9
 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 9
EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 9
 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 9
EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 9
§ 986.70 Handling for special purposes. Regulations in effect pursuant to § 986.69, Authorities regulating handling, may be modified, suspended, or terminated to facilitate handling of pecans for: ( a ) Relief or charity;
( b ) Experimental purposes; and
( c ) Other purposes which may be recommended by the Council and approved by the Secretary.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-QSB
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          74,545
<SECURITIES>                                 2,223,511
<RECEIVABLES>                                   59,026
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,357,082
<PP&E>                                          89,329
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,446,411
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,944
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        36,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,380,467
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,446,411
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               225,280
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (225,280)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (225,280)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (225,280)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Realmark Property Investors Limited Partnership IV for
the six months ended June 30, 1998, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                       1
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       0
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                            9,275
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       823,999
<PP&E>                              19,510,267
<DEPRECIATION>                       8,816,198
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      11,808,447
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                3,577,963
<BONDS>                             10,761,418
<COMMON>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                   0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        11,808,447
<SALES>                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     1,523,182
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        2,963,827
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     772,420
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (1,440,645)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          0
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      3,559,333
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                         2,118,688
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            87.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                0
        

</TABLE>
§ 1015.405 Discharge of indebtedness; reporting requirements. ( a ) Before discharging a delinquent debt (also referred to as a close out of the debt), DOE shall take all appropriate steps to collect the debt in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(g), including, as applicable, administrative offset, tax refund offset, Federal salary offset, referral to Treasury, Treasury-designated debt collection centers or private collection contractors, credit bureau reporting, wage garnishment, litigation, and foreclosure. Discharge of indebtedness is distinct from termination or suspension of collection activity under § 1015.400 of this part and is governed by the Internal Revenue Code. When collection action on a debt is suspended or terminated, the debt remains delinquent and further collection action may be pursued at a later date in accordance with the standards set forth in this subpart. When DOE discharges a debt in full or in part, further collection action is prohibited. Therefore, DOE will make the determination that collection action is no longer warranted before discharging a debt. Before discharging a debt, DOE must terminate debt collection action.
( b ) 31 U.S.C. 3711(i) requires DOE to sell a delinquent non-tax debt upon termination of collection action if Treasury determines such a sale is in the best interests of the United States. Since the discharge of a debt precludes any further collection action (including the sale of a delinquent debt), DOE may not discharge a debt until the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3711(i) have been met.
( c ) Upon discharge of an indebtedness, DOE must report the discharge to the IRS in accordance with the requirements of 26 U.S.C. 6050P and 26 CFR 1.6050P-1. DOE may request Treasury or Treasury-designated debt collection centers to file such a discharge report to the IRS on DOE's behalf.
( d ) When discharging a debt, DOE must request that litigation counsel release any liens of record securing the debt.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00280

- CV

The Hertz Corporation , Appellant

v.

Chandra Oglen , Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF BELL COUNTY NO. 90538 , THE HONORABLE JEANNE PARKER , JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s brief on appeal was originally due on July 25, 20 22. On September 6,

2022 , this C ourt sent a notice to appellant informing it that its brief was overdue and that a

failure to file a satisfactory response by Se pte mber 16, 2022, would result in the dismissal of this

appeal for want of p rosecution. On counsel’s subsequently filed motion , the time for filing was

extended to October 24 , 2022 . Appellant’s counsel has now filed a second motion, requesting

that the Court extend the ti me for filing appellant’s brief. We grant the motion for extension of

time and order appellant to file a brief no later than November 30, 2022 . No further extension of

time will be granted a nd failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this appeal.

See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a).

It is ordered on Oct ober 31, 2022.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Tr iana and Smith
Rialto Capital **2014 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)**Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") dated as of  November 1, 2012  by and among GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II, as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC as Operating Advisor and U.S. Bank National Association as Certificate Administrator, Custodian and Trustee relating to the GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2012-GCJ9, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2012-GCJ9 **(GSMS 2012-GCJ9)**The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the "Special Servicer") herein certifies to the following: 1.All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer. 2.A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 (the "Reporting Period") in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision. 3.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein. Certified by:  ___/s/ Adam Singer________________  Date:  March 5, 2015       Adam Singer, Managing Director ********
Subpart 1032.1 - Non-Commercial Item

Purchase Financing

Parent topic: PART 1032 - CONTRACT FINANCING

1032.113 Customary contract financing.

The specified arrangements are considered customary within Treasury.
5115.000 Scope of part.    (1) The Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3) at Appendix AA contains detailed guidance             pertaining to the source selection process. The AS3 is used in conjunction with this             part and supplements the mandatory DoD Source Selection Procedures. It contains             information on source selection processes and techniques that the Army uses for             competitive, negotiated acquisitions using either formal or informal source selection             procedures. See DoD Source Selection Procedures at 1.3, page 2 for exceptions.       (2) The AS3 is a comprehensive source selection resource which             recites best practices that promote source selection flexibility and consistency within             a given framework in Army source selections. Army personnel shall use the AS3 resource             when conducting competitive source selections. The extent to which personnel will use             the processes and techniques described in this supplement will depend upon the             complexity and dollar value of each acquisition and the available resources. When using             the AS3, apply prudent business sense to tailor the processes to fit the             circumstances. **Parent topic:** Part 5115 - Contracting by Negotiation
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 1, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00851-CR

NO. 14-12-00852-CR

NO. 14-12-00853-CR

CHRISTOPHER MARIO TURTUR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 182nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1335396, 1335456, & 1350337

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

Appellant entered guilty pleas to three counts of theft. In accordance with the 

terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant to 

confinement for eighteen months in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice. Appellant filed pro se notices of appeal. We dismiss the appeals. 
2

The trial court entered certifications of the defendant’s right to appeal in which the 

court certified that these are plea bargain cases, and the defendant has no right of appeal. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court’s certifications are included in the records

on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The records support the trial court’s 

certifications. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Christopher, and Jamison.

Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
April22, 2013 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Sirs: 

] NAy I 3 p I: 5 0 

This letter is to petition the U.S. Department of Transportation on behalf of American 

Helicopters, Inc. for an exemption from the requirement for a separate drug and alcohol testing 

program for both 91.14 7 operation and 13 5 operations. 

American Helicopter, Inc. is located at 10503 Wakeman Drive, Manassas, Virginia 20110 

operates passenger-carrying flights for compensation or hire under 14 CFR §91.14 7( c )(7) and a 

charter operation under 14 CFR § 13 5. We are petitioning to combine the drug and alcohol 

requirements (§91.1047 and §§120.1, 120.3 and 120.5) as both operations are 100% owned and 

operated by American Helicopters, Inc. The 135 pilot is already participating in the drug and 

alcohol testing program under the 91.14 7 operation, therefore; it is redundant to have two 

separate drug and alcohol testing programs. It is a financial and administrative hardship for 

American Helicopters, Inc. to maintain two programs. American Helicopters, Inc. strives to 

maintain an exceptionally high level of safety. Combining these operations under one drug and 

alcohol testing program would in no way jeopardize safety as the pilot is already enrolled in the 

American Helicopters, Inc. testing program and is subject to random drug and alcohol testing. He 

has already tested negative for his pre-employment drug test and is in the testing pool for random 

selections. 

In summary, American Helicopters, Inc. seeks an exemption from the need for two separate drug 

and alcohol testing programs because both our operations fall under one company and 

management and it is redundant to maintain two programs. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me with any questions or concerns 

regarding this petition. 

B. e:·t. Regaft. ds, ... ·. . . . . . , a ~oseley n4M 'ichlik . ' • 

Drug Program Manager 

10503 Wakeman Drive Manassas Regional Airport (KHEF) Manassas, Virginia 20110 

(703) 368-9599 office (703) 368-9445 fax www.americanheli.com
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 242 (Friday, December 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79025-79026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31592]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to The National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Wireless Industrial Technology Konsortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on November 2, 2010, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Wireless Industrial 
Technology Konsortium, Inc. (``WITECK'') has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Software 
Technologies Group, Westchester, IL, has withdrawn as a party to this 
venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and WITECK intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On August 8, 2008, WITECK filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the

[[Page 79026]]

Act on September 18, 2008 (73 FR 54170).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on March 12, 
2010. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on April 16, 2010 (75 FR 20003).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-31592 Filed 12-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M