alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 984.437 Methods for proposing names of additional candidates to be included on walnut growers' nomination ballots. ( a ) With regard to Board grower member positions specified in § 984.35(a)(5) and (b)(6), any ten or more such growers who marketed an aggregate of 500 or more tons of walnuts through handlers who did not handle 35% or more of the crop during the marketing year preceding the year in which Board nominations are held, may petition the Board to include on the nomination ballot the name of an eligible candidate for this position, and the name of an eligible candidate to serve as his or her alternate. The names of the eligible candidates proposed pursuant to this paragraph shall be included on the ballot together with the names of any incumbents who are willing to continue serving on the Board.
( b ) Any ten or more growers eligible to serve in the grower member positions specified in § 984.35(a)(3) and (4) or § 984.35(b)(4) and (5) and who marketed an aggregate of 500 or more tons of walnuts through handlers who did not handle 35% or more of the crop during the marketing year preceding the year in which Board nominations are held, may petition the Board to include on the nomination ballot for a district the name of an eligible candidate for the applicable position, and the name of an eligible candidate to serve as his or her alternate. The names of the eligible candidates proposed pursuant to this paragraph shall be included on the ballot together with the names of any incumbents who are willing to continue serving on the Board.
( c ) Petitions made pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall be on forms supplied by the Board and filed no later than April 1 of the nomination year.
[41 FR 54476, Dec. 14, 1976, as amended at 73 FR 73997, Dec. 5, 2008; 74 FR 9047, Mar. 2, 2009]
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3550 

To allow members of the Selected Reserve enrolled in the TRICARE program 

to pay premiums with pre-tax dollars. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 21, 2006 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To allow members of the Selected Reserve enrolled in the 

TRICARE program to pay premiums with pre-tax dollars. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PRE-TAX PREMIUMS FOR MEMBERS OF THE SE4 LECTED RESERVE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall in6 stitute a premium conversion plan under which members 

7 of the Selected Reserve who are participating in the 

8 TRICARE program (as defined in section 1072(7) of title 

9 10, United States Code) may choose between cash and 

10 health benefits under such program. The premium converVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:36 Jun 22, 2006 Jkt 049196 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3550.IS S3550

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 3550 IS

1 sion program shall be designed to meet the requirements 

2 of section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

3 (b) DEFAULT SELECTION.—Unless a member makes 

4 an election provided under the premium conversion plan, 

5 the member shall be treated as having chosen health bene6 fits under the TRICARE program. 

Æ 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
§ 150.33 Criminal penalties. ( a ) Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, provides for criminal sanctions for willful violation of, attempted violation of, or conspiracy to violate, any regulation issued under sections 161b, 161i, or 161o of the Act. For purposes of section 223, all the regulations in part 150 are issued under one or more of sections 161b, 161i, or 161o, except for sections listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) The regulations in part 150 that are not issued under sections 161b, 161i, or 161o for the purposes of section 223 are as follows: §§ 150.1, 150.2, 150.3, 150.4, 150.5, 150.7, 150.8, 150.10, 150.11, 150.15, 150.15a, 150.30, 150.31, 150.32, and 150.33.
[57 FR 55081, Nov. 24, 1992]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) Case No. 2:06CR197-MEF

)

RODERICK CHARLES MELVIN )

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER

A pretrial conference was held on October 13, 2006 before the undersigned

Magistrate Judge. Present at this conference was the Honorable Kevin Butler, counsel for

the defendant, and Assistant United States Attorney Tommie Hardwick, counsel for the

government. As a result of the conference, it is

ORDERED as follows:

1. Jury selection is set for November 27, 2006. The trial of this case is set for the

trial term commencing on November 27, 2006 before Chief United States District Judge

Mark E. Fuller and is expected to last one trial day.

2. The following motion is pending: Defendant’s Motion to Suppress. An

evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is set for October 25, 2006 at 9:00

a.m.

3. Proposed voir dire questions shall be filed on or before November 20, 2006.

Counsel should not include questions seeking information which is provided in the jury

questionnaire.

Case 1:06-cr-00197-MEF-CSC Document 15 Filed 10/16/06 Page 1 of 2
4. All Motions in Limine shall be filed on or before November 20, 2006. Motions

in Limine must be accompanied by a brief. Failure to file a brief will result in denial of the

motion.

5. Proposed jury instructions shall be filed on or before November 20, 2006.

6. The court will not consider a plea pursuant to Rule 11(c) (1)(A) or (C) unless

notice is filed on or before noon on November 15, 2006. The government and defendant

are informed that if a defendant waits until the last minute to enter a plea, and if that plea, for

whatever reason, is not accepted by the court, the defendant and the government will be

expected to be prepared to go to trial on November 27, 2006. The court will not continue

the trial of this case as to any defendant because a defendant’s plea was not accepted. In

other words, the defendant and the government should not wait until the last minute for a

defendant to enter a guilty plea, and both the defendant and the government should all be

ready to go to trial on November 27, 2006, as to all defendants, even though a particular

guilty plea was not accepted by the court.

Done this 16 day of October, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cr-00197-MEF-CSC Document 15 Filed 10/16/06 Page 2 of 2
NUMBER 13-14-00490-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Perkes and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

On October 16, 2014, this Court conditionally granted a petition for writ of 

mandamus filed by Prime Insurance Company (“Prime”) seeking to enforce a forum 

selection clause. See In re Prime Ins. Co., No. 13-14-00490-CV, 2014 WL 5314514, at 

*1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Oct. 16, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Specifically, 

we directed the trial court to vacate its orders denying Prime's motions to dismiss the 

underlying lawsuit and to sign an order granting Prime's motion to dismiss the underlying 

lawsuit. See id. at *12. 

On October 31, 2014, real parties in interest, RZQ, L.L.C., Hameed Quraishi, M.D., 

Rafath Quraishi, M.D., Aadam Quraishi, and Advanced Medical Imaging, L.L.C., filed a 
2

motion for rehearing. That same day, Prime filed an “Unopposed Emergency Motion for 

Temporary Relief” through which it seeks to stay trial court proceedings pending 

disposition of the motion for rehearing. According to Prime, the trial court has set a 

hearing for November 4, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. on Prime’s motion to dismiss, despite this 

Court’s ruling, and appellees have served Prime with a subpoena duces tecum requesting 

that Prime produce a witness and documents, at that same hearing, pertaining to other 

claims or lawsuits involving Prime policies over a four-year period of time. 

We assume that the forementioned trial court proceedings must have been 

scheduled in error because we are confident that the trial court and parties would not 

intentionally violate this Court’s directive. Accordingly, the Court, having examined and 

fully considered the foregoing sequence of events, is of the opinion that Prime’s motion 

to stay all trial court proceedings should be granted. The emergency motion for temporary 

relief is hereby GRANTED, and the trial court proceedings are ordered STAYED pending 

further order of this Court, or until the motion for rehearing is finally decided. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is 

effective until the case is finally decided.”). 

The Court further requests that Prime file a response to the real parties’ motion for 

rehearing. Such response should be due in the offices of this Court within ten days from 

the date of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

3rd day of November, 2014.
# Subpart 2908.4 - Federal Supply Schedules

**Parent topic:**PART 2908 - REQUIRED SOURCES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES

## 2908.404 Using schedules.

Small business considerations, procedures regarding both prime and subcontracting, and clearances specified in DOLAR 2919 apply to GSA Federal Supply Schedule Orders above the simplified acquisition threshold. Procedures to be followed may be modified by the Office of Small Business Program as appropriate in order to comply with GSA Federal Supply Schedule procedures (e.g., first tier contracts may be required to report their commercial subcontracting goals to the DOL Office of Small Business Programs).
3024.203 Policy.

(a) The Department's implementation of the Freedom of Information Act is codified in regulations 6

CFR part 5, subpart B, FOIA. Information requests concerning awards beyond those routinely

handled by contracting officers (e.g., identification of successful offerors, public announcements,

debriefings, surety notices under HSAR 3028.106–6) shall be submitted to the FOIA Office of the

Component making the award. The FOIA office for the DHS Office of Operations only, is

Departmental Disclosure Officer (DDO), DHS, Washington, DC 20528 or foia@dhs.gov.

(b) See (FAR) 48 CFR 15.207(b) on safeguarding proposals.

Parent topic: Subpart 3024.2—Freedom of Information Act
#### § 956.10 Producer.

*Producer* is synonymous with *grower* and means any person engaged in a proprietary capacity in the production of Walla Walla Sweet Onions for market.
#### § 987.141 Inspection and certification.

Each handler shall furnish, or cause the inspection service to furnish, to the Committee a copy of the inspection certificate issued to him on each lot of dates, and such certificate shall contain at least the following information: (a) The date of inspection; (b) the name of the handler; (c) the lot number and the applicable outlet category set forth in § 987.112a; (d) the variety of dates and weight of the lot; (e) the number and type of containers in the lot; and (f) if the dates (1) are other than field-run dates, a certification as to the grade of the dates and whether or not they meet the applicable grade, size, container, and identification requirements, or (2) are field-run dates, a certification showing the percentage by weight, of sound dates in the lot, and whether or not they meet the identification requirements for such dates.

[43 FR 28437, June 30, 1978]
#### In re CUNNINGHAM.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 19, 1914.)

In the matter of Daniel Cunningham, deceased.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. Order filed. See, also, 147 N. Y. Supp. 1105.
Case 3:06-cr-00210-MEF-CSC Document 13 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### Martin Wade, an Infant, by Martha Wade, His Mother and Natural Guardian, et al., Respondents, v. Frank Catalano et al., Appellants.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, loss of services and medical expenses, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 11, 1968, which, after a pretrial hearing, accorded the action a trial preference. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and without prejudice to any future application by plain*846tiffs for a preference. Absent a factual showing as a predicate for the finding that defendants failed to and did not want to co-operate in negotiating a settlement, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to direct the preference *(Marcus*v. *Schwartz,*26 A D 2d 943); in our opinion under the facts presented herein, since defendants’ attorney advised the court that plaintiffs’ settlement demand was within the policy coverage, his subsequent refusal to divulge the limits of such coverage was not sufficient basis for holding that defendants failed to co-operate and did not want to co-operate with the court in settling the action (cf. *Stashin*v. *City of New York,*22 A D 2d 685). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Munder and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 170 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 170

Of inquiry requesting the President to transmit certain information to 
 the House of Representatives respecting a claim made by the President 
  on February 16, 2005, at a meeting Portsmouth, New Hampshire, that 
                 there is not a Social Security trust.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2005

 Mr. Kucinich (for himself, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. Watson, Mr. 
Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Clay, Mr. 
Cleaver, Mr. Stark, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr. Sanders, Mr. 
 Payne, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Serrano, Ms. Lee, Mr. Owens, 
   Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Nadler, Mrs. Maloney, Ms. Waters, Mr. Farr, Mr. 
Rahall, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. 
McDermott, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Honda, Mr. Abercrombie, Ms. Baldwin, 
 Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Filner, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Brown of 
  Ohio, and Mr. George Miller of California) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Of inquiry requesting the President to transmit certain information to 
 the House of Representatives respecting a claim made by the President 
  on February 16, 2005, at a meeting Portsmouth, New Hampshire, that 
                 there is not a Social Security trust.

    Resolved, That the President is requested to transmit to the House 
of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of the 
adoption of this resolution, information in the possession of the 
President that provides specific evidence for the following statement 
that the President made on February 16, 2005, at a meeting Portsmouth, 
New Hampshire: ``And by the way, there is not a Social Security 
trust''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 1040.11 Purpose and application. ( a ) The purpose of this subpart is to implement title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (title VI) and the pertinent regulations of DOE so that no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance of the type subject to title VI. This subpart also implements section 16 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended (section 16) and section 401 of the Energy Reorganization of 1974 (section 401) so that no person shall be excluded on the ground of sex from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance subject to section 16 or 401. The coverage of employment practices is explained in § 1040.14.
( b ) The application of this subpart is to delivery of services by and the covered employment practices of recipients and subrecipients administering or participating in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance under laws administered by DOE covered by title VI. In addition to services and employment practices, this subpart applies to any activities of recipients or subrecipients receiving Federal financial assistance subject to section 16 and section 401.
[45 FR 40515, June 13, 1980, as amended at 68 FR 51347, Aug. 26, 2003]
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear at 70 FR 30897, May 31, 2005; 77 FR 39904, July 6, 2012; 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 10.2 Scope. The criteria and procedures in this part shall be used in determining eligibility for NRC access authorization and/or employment clearance involving: ( a ) Employees (including consultants) of contractors and agents of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and applicants for employment;
( b ) NRC licensees, certificate holders and holders of standard design approvals under part 52 of this chapter, applicants for licenses, certificates, and standard design approvals under part 52 of this chapter, and their employees (including consultants) and applicants for employment (including consulting);
( c ) NRC employees (including consultants) and applicants for employment; and
( d ) Any other person designated by the Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, Research, State, Tribal, Compliance, Administration, and Human Capital Programs of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
[47 FR 38676, Sept. 2, 1982, as amended at 64 FR 15641, Apr. 1, 1999; 72 FR 49483, Aug. 28, 2007]
Exhibit 10.4


 


	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  3801
  LAS VEGAS BLVD. SO. · LAS VEGAS,
  NV 89109 · (702) 739-2222

  
	
   

  



 


The Way Las Vegas Was Meant To Be


 


May 19,
2009


 


 


Ms. Joanne
M. Beckett 


9103
Alta Drive


Las
Vegas NV 89145


 


Dear
Ms. Beckett,


 


On
behalf of Hotel Ramada of Nevada, dba Tropicana Resort & Casino (the “Company”),
I am pleased to extend to you an offer to join the Company as Legal Counsel,
reporting directly to the President. If you accept this offer, we anticipate
that you will join the Company on June 1, 2009.


 


This
is an exempt position, and your base salary will be paid at an annual rate of
$180,000, less applicable withholdings. Additionally, you will be eligible for
a $100,000 signing bonus, payable in two payments. The first $50,000 signing
bonus, less applicable withholdings, will become payable upon the effectiveness
of the LandCo Plan of Reorganization in the Company’s pending Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceeding. The second and final payment of $50,000 signing bonus,
less applicable withholdings, will become payable upon completion of one year
of service. You will be eligible for an annual salary increase and an annual
bonus, the payment and amount of which will be determined by the Company’s
senior management and approved by the Company’s (or its ultimate parent
company) Board of Directors in their sole and absolute discretion. You will be
eligible to participate in the benefit programs made available to similarly
situated employees of the Company in accordance with the programs’ applicable
terms and conditions. You also will be entitled to paid time off, which will
accrue and must be used in accordance with the Company’s PTO policy.


 


As
a condition to commencing your employment, you must satisfactorily complete the
Company’s background investigation and drug testing processes, and also sign
and return the attached confidentiality agreement. A company representative
will contact you shortly regarding the background investigation and drug
testing processes.


 


Joanne,
we are excited about having you on board and look forward to working with you.


 


	
  Sincerely,

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/
  Ron Thacker

  	
   

  
	
  Ron
  Thacker

  	
   

  
	
  President

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  ACCEPTED
  AND AGREED TO this 25th day of May, 2009

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/
  Joanne M. Beckett

  	
   

  
	
  Joanne M. Beckett
§ 1042.530 Marital or parental status. ( a ) *General.* A recipient shall not apply any policy or take any employment action: ( 1 ) Concerning the potential marital, parental, or family status of an employee or applicant for employment that treats persons differently on the basis of sex; or
( 2 ) Which is based upon whether an employee or applicant for employment is the head of household or principal wage earner in such employee's or applicant's family unit.
( b ) *Pregnancy.* A recipient shall not discriminate against or exclude from employment any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom.
( c ) *Pregnancy as a temporary disability.* Subject to § 1042.235(d), a recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, recovery therefrom, and any temporary disability resulting therefrom as any other temporary disability for all job-related purposes, including commencement, duration, and extensions of leave, payment of disability income, accrual of seniority and any other benefit or service, and reinstatement, and under any fringe benefit offered to employees by virtue of employment.
( d ) *Pregnancy leave.* In the case of a recipient that does not maintain a leave policy for its employees, or in the case of an employee with insufficient leave or accrued employment time to qualify for leave under such a policy, a recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, and recovery therefrom as a justification for a leave of absence without pay for a reasonable period of time, at the conclusion of which the employee shall be reinstated to the status that she held when the leave began or to a comparable position, without decrease in rate of compensation or loss of promotional opportunities, or any other right or privilege of employment.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-07-223-CV

SAMUEL ARBUCKLE	APPELLANT

	V.

JANICE LUTZ	APPELLEE

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

	FROM THE 271ST DISTRICT COURT OF WISE COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	On September 18, 2007, appellant Samuel Arbuckle, acting pro se, tendered his brief to this court.  We notified Arbuckle that the brief is defective in substance and form, specifically listing the ways in which the brief does not comply with the rules of appellate procedure.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(a), (d), (f), (h), (j); 42.3.  We also stated that failure to file an amended brief complying with the rules by September 28, 2007, could result in the striking of the noncompliant brief, waiver of nonconforming points, or dismissal of the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3.  Arbuckle has not filed an amended brief, nor has he responded to our letter.

	Rule 38.9 provides that “substantial compliance” with the briefing rules is required, subject to exceptions.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.9.  First, if the court determines that the briefing rules have been flagrantly violated as to form, the court may require the appellant to amend, supplement, or redraw his brief.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a).  If the appellant files another brief that does not comply, the court may strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and proceed as if the party did not file a brief.  Id.

	Accordingly, because this court informed Arbuckle of the substantial defects in his brief but he failed to file an amended brief curing those defects, we strike Arbuckle’s brief and dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(c); Newman v. Clark, 113 S.W.3d 622, 623 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.).

							PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	MCCOY, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.

LIVINGSTON, J. dissents without opinion.

DELIVERED: November 15, 2007