alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered March 2 2 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 00863
- CR
LAWRENCE FRANK CROUSE, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Collin County, Texas Trial Cour t Cause No. 002
- 87861
- 2011 

### O RDER The Court has before it the State’s March 4, 2013 motion to unseal State’s Exhibit nos. 3 and 4 and Defendant’s Exhibit no. 3 so that the State may refer to the exhibits in its brief. The exhibits involved are appellant’ s Presbyterian Hospital discharge instructions, Presbyterian Hospital records, and LifePath treatment records. The State asserts the exhibits were unsealed at the beginning of the trial, admitted into evidence, and that witnesses testified about informati on contained in the exhibits. The trial court resealed the exhibits at the conclusion of the trial. The
State contend s there is no legal basis for sealing the exhibits. The State says appellant raised an issue specifically challenging State’s Exhibit no s. 3 and 4, and the State had to refer to the sealed exhibits in response. The State asks that we unseal the exhibits so that its brief may be madeavailable to the public without violating the trial court’s order. Appellant did not respond to the
State’ s motion. The State does not complain it did not have access to the sealed exhibits in order to prepare its brief. Nor does the State complain the records are not available for this Court’s review. Rather, the State’s focus appears to be on its ability to cite to the exhibits and to have its brief available to the public.
V arious witnesses testified to the contents of the exhibits during trial , but the trial court did not seal the entire record related to that testimony. Rather, the trial court, in the interest of protecting appellant’s rights under HIPPA, determined the medical record exhibits should be sealed. Based on the argument presented in the State’s motion, w e cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion by ordering th e e xhibits to be sealed. Accordingly, w e DENY the State’s motion to unseal the exhibits without prejudice to the State reasserting its motion to the submissions panel.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           155,335
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 218,794
<CASH>                                           2,721
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         418,532
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,605,956
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 96,004
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                       10,389,723
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                241,000
<COMMON>                                         2,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     234,099
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,605,956
<PREMIUMS>                                           0
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              9,044
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 509
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 190,422
<BENEFITS>                                       3,983
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     49,597
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           105,498
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 40,897
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,446
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,451
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,451
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
§ 900.503 Request for records. ( a ) Requests for records under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3) shall be made in accordance with § 1.3(a) of this title. Authority to make determinations regarding initial requests in accordance with § 1.4(c) of this title is delegated to the Freedom of Information Act Officer of AMS. Requests should be submitted to the FOIA Officer at the following address: Freedom of Information Act Officer (FOIA Request). Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.
( b ) The request shall identify each record with reasonable specificity as prescribed in § 1.3 of this title.
( c ) The FOIA Officer is authorized to receive requests and to exercise the authority to ( 1 ) Make determinations to grant requests or deny initial requests,
( 2 ) Extend the administrative deadline,
( 3 ) Make discretionary release of exempt records, and
( 4 ) Make determinations regarding charges pursuant to the fee schedule.
[44 FR 39151, July 5, 1979, as amended at 88 FR 82231, Nov. 24, 2023]
#### James *v.*Hamil *et al.*

Beck, J.

1. It appearing that a certain return of partitioned was material to the issues being tried, that the same was introduced in evidence by the plaintiffs and admitted without objection, and that the description of the land included in the return and assigned to various parties, one of whom was a predecessor in title of the plaintiffs, concludes with the recital, “all of which will fully appear by reference to the annexed plat of survey, which is a part of the return,” the court did not err in ad*169mitting in evidence tlie plat thus referred to, over the objection that the same “did not clearly show the land sought to be conveyed to the several parties named in the partition proceedings, by distances, metes, and bounds;” it being apparent from a consideration of the map in connection with the recitals in the return that the two, that is the return and the map annexed, show clearly the various parcels of land assigned to the several parties named in the return.

June 17, 1913.

Ejectment. Before Judge Worrill. Early superior court. September 3, 1912.

*Bambo &*Wright, for plaintiff in error.

*Pope &*Bennet, contra.

2. Under the explanation made in the judge’s note, his reference to a cértain witness and party as “Willie Hamil” was not misleading or confusing to the jury, it being manifest that although the judge should have referred to J. A. Hamil as the party making the agreement, the effect of which was being submitted to the jury in the charge, the jury could not but have understood that the party actually making the agreement was referred to when he miscalled his name and referred to him as Willie Hamil.

3. The other portions of the charge complained of were adapted ■ to one phase of the case as presented under the testimony of certain witnesses, and consequently were not open to the objection that such charges were not warranted by nor adjusted to the evidence in the case. If other theories of the case which the plaintiff in error contends to be the true theories were made by the evidence and were not covered by the charge, this should have been excepted to on that ground.

4. A deed purporting to convey “153 and 1/3 acres off of lot of land No. 42” was inoperative, because of vagueness and uncertainty of description of the portion of lot No. 42 sought to be conveyed, to convey any portion of that lot of land, although it might be operative to convey other lots of land or portions of other lots where the descriptions of such other lots or portions thereof were sufficiently definite.

5. The evidence authorized the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### § 1021.211 Interim actions: Limitations on actions during the NEPA process.

While DOE is preparing an EIS that is required under § 1021.300(a) of this part, DOE shall take no action concerning the proposal that is the subject of the EIS before issuing an ROD, except as provided at 40 CFR 1506.1. Actions that are covered by, or are a part of, a DOE proposal for which an EIS is being prepared shall not be categorically excluded under subpart D of these regulations unless they qualify as interim actions under 40 CFR 1506.1.
#### BROWN, Appellant, v. GENERAL DROP FORGE CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

May 27, 1914.)

Action by John Brown against the General Drop Forge Company.

No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied. For former decision see 161 App. Div. 911, 145 N. Y. Supp. 1114.
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.103 Action on applications for byproduct, source, special nuclear material, facility and operator licenses. ( a ) If the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, or Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate, finds that an application for a byproduct, source, special nuclear material, facility, or operator license complies with the requirements of the Act, the Energy Reorganization Act, and this chapter, the Director will issue a license. If the license is for a facility, or for receipt of waste radioactive material from other persons for the purpose of commercial disposal by the waste disposal licensee, or for a construction authorization for a HLW repository at a geologic repository operations area under parts 60 or 63 of this chapter, or if it is to receive and possess high-level radioactive waste at a geologic repository operations area under parts 60 or 63 of this chapter, the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, or Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate, will inform the State, Tribal and local officials specified in § 2.104(c) of the issuance of the license. For notice of issuance requirements for licenses issued under part 61 of this chapter, see § 2.106(d).
( b ) If the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, or Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate, finds that an application does not comply with the requirements of the Act and this chapter the Director may issue a notice of proposed denial or a notice of denial of the application and inform the applicant in writing of: ( 1 ) The nature of any deficiencies or the reason for the proposed denial or the denial, and
( 2 ) The right of the applicant to demand a hearing within twenty (20) days from the date of the notice or such longer period as may be specified in the notice.
[28 FR 10152, Sept. 17, 1963, as amended at 47 FR 57478, Dec. 27, 1982; 66 FR 55787, Nov. 2, 2001; 69 FR 2235, Jan. 14, 2004; 73 FR 5715, Jan. 31, 2008; 77 FR 46589, Aug. 3, 2012; 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014; 84 FR 65643, Nov. 29, 2019; 88 FR 57876, Aug. 24, 2023]
§ 1040.89-7 Investigation. ( a ) *Informal Investigation.* ( 1 ) The Director, Office of Civil Rights and Diversity, will review complaints that are unresolved after mediation or are reopened because of a violation of a mediation agreement.
( 2 ) As part of this review, Field Civil Rights Officers will use informal fact finding methods, including joint or separate discussions with the complainant and recipient, to establish the facts and, if possible, settle the complaint on terms that are mutually agreeable to the parties.
( 3 ) If the complaint is resolved during the informal investigation, DOE will put the agreement in writing and have it signed by the parties and the Director, Office of Civil Rights and Diversity.
( 4 ) The settlement shall not affect the operation of any other enforcement effort of DOE, including compliance reviews and investigation of other complaints which may involve the recipient.
( 5 ) The settlement is not a finding of discrimination against a recipient.
( b ) *Formal Investigation.* If Field Civil Rights Officers cannot resolve the complaint through informal inquiry, the Director, Office of Civil Rights and Diversity, will assign an Investigator to conduct a formal investigation of the complaint. If the investigation indicates a violation of the Act or these regulations, DOE will attempt to obtain voluntary compliance. If DOE cannot obtain voluntary compliance, it will begin enforcement as described in § 1040.89-10 and 10 CFR part 1040, subpart H, § 1040.111.
[50 FR 8089, Feb. 27, 1985, as amended at 68 FR 51348, Aug. 26, 2003]
ex10_7.htm


    Lease
Agreement

     

    (Translation)

     

    


     

    Party A
(Leasor): Pingdingshan City Credit Union Limited

     

    Party B
(Lessee): Henan Province Pingdingshan Hongli Coal & Coke Co.,
Ltd.

     

    As Party
A agrees to lease to Party B the 10th Floor of the City Credit Union building
located at Kuanggong Road and Tiyu Road of Pingdingshan City, the parties enter
into the following agreement through negotiation pursuant to the relevant
provisions of the Contract Law:

     

    
      	
               
      

            	
              1.

            	
              Party
      A shall lease to Party B the 10th Floor of the City Credit Union building
      located at Kuanggong Road for Party B’s business
  use.

            


    

     

    
      	
               
      

            	
              2.

            	
              Party
      B shall pay a monthly rent of RMB 4,000 to Party
  A.

            


    

     

    
      	
               
      

            	
              3.

            	
              The
      parties agree to a lease period of four (4) years, from September 13, 2007
      to May 31, 2010.

            


    

     

    
      	
               
      

            	
              4.

            	
              Unsolved
      matters are subject to further negotiation between the
      parties.

            


    

     

    


     

    Party A:
Pingdingshan City Credit Union Limited (Stamp)

     

    Party B:
Henan Province Pingdingshan Hongli Coal & Coke Co., Ltd.
(Stamp)

     

    


     

    September
13, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 151 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        March 15, 2005.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1268) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the 
bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the 
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of 
order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 
XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of 
rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion 
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2. In the engrossment of H.R. 1268, the Clerk shall--
            (1) add the text of H.R. 418, as passed by the House, as new matter 
        at the end of H.R. 1268;
            (2) conform the title of H.R. 1268 to reflect the addition to the 
        engrossment of H.R. 418;
            (3) assign appropriate designations to provisions within the 
        engrossment; and
            (4) conform provisions for short titles within the engrossment.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### § 915.26 Vacancies.

To fill any vacancy occasioned by the failure of any person selected as a member or as an alternate member of the committee to qualify, or in the event of the death, removal, resignation, or disqualification of any member or alternate member of the committee, a successor for the unexpired term of such member or alternate member of the committee shall be nominated and selected in the manner specified in §§ 915.22 and 915.23. If the names of nominees to fill any such vacancy are not made available to the Secretary within fifteen days after such vacancy occurs, the Secretary may fill such vacancy without regard to nominations, which selection shall be made on the basis of representation provided for in § 915.20.
Order entered August 30, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00682-CV

SUSAN ANN FISHER, Appellant

V.

MEDICAL CENTER OF PLANO, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-01240-2016

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s August 26, 2016 motion for an extension of time to pay for the 

clerk’s and reporter’s records to the extent that appellant shall file, by SEPTEMBER 28, 2016, 

written verification that she has paid for the records. We caution appellant that failure to pay for 

the reporter’s record will result in this appeal being submitted without that record; failure to pay 

for the clerk’s record will result in dismissal of this appeal without further warning. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 37.3(b),(c), 42.3(b),(c).

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
2452.3 Provision and clause matrix.           **Parent topic:** Subpart 2452.3 - Matrix
# Subpart 312.1 - Acquisition of Commercial Items - General

**Parent topic:**PART 312 - ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS

## 312.101 Policy.

Contracting offices shall use the HHS Smarter Buying Program to the maximum extent practicable. See HHS Acquisition Regulation part 307, Acquisition Planning.
# Subpart 1033.2 - Disputes and Appeals

**Parent topic:**PART 1033 - PROTESTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS

## 1033.201 Definitions.

*Agency Board of Contract Appeals* means the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA). The CBCA is the authorized representative of the Secretary of the Treasury in hearing, considering, and determining all appeals of decisions of Contracting Officers filed by contractors pursuant to FAR Subpart 33.2. Appeals are governed by the Rules of Procedure of the CBCA.
#### § 1707.201 General prohibition.

No employee may produce official records and information or provide any testimony relating to official information in response to a demand or request without the prior, written approval of the General Counsel.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., P.C., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

SKILSTAF, INC., 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

3:06-cv-00711-MHT 

FILED UNDER SEAL

INDEX TO EXHIBITS

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 38 Filed 04/09/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

In support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant 

Skilstaf, Inc. will submit contemporaneously herewith the Affidavit of 

Robert Johnson and, pursuant to the Protective Order entered by the Court 

on January 11, 2007, will submit contemporaneously herewith under seal the 

following exhibits. 

Exhibit A: The Summary Plan Description for the Skilstaf Group Health 

Plan, Skilstaf-00001 through Skilstaf-00085. 

Exhibit B: Excerpts from Skilstaf-00085 through Skilstaf-02129, which is 

the Administrative Record. 

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 38 Filed 04/09/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 38-2 Filed 04/09/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 38-2 Filed 04/09/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 38-2 Filed 04/09/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 38-2 Filed 04/09/2007 Page 4 of 4
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6096
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDDIE HAIGLER, a/k/a Ram, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-89-186-5, CA-95-2208-5-6) Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: May 1, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eddie Haigler, Appellant Pro Se. Cameron Glenn Chandler, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Appellee's motion for summary judgment and denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the record andthe district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Haigler , Nos. CR-89-186-5; CA-95-2208-5-6 (D.S.C. Nov. 24, 1997). See Lindh v. Murphy , 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S.June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit No. 32.3   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 this report of Questar Pipeline Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), R. Allan Bradley, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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 results of operations of the Company.  QUESTAR PIPELINE COMPANY   November 4, 2010 /s/R. Allan Bradley R. Allan Bradley President and Chief Executive Officer