alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 784.4 Advance waiver. This section covers inventions that may be conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the course of or under a particular contract. In determining whether an advance waiver will best serve the interests of the United States and the general public, the Secretary or designee (currently the Assistant General Counsel for Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property) shall, at a minimum, specifically include as considerations the following: ( a ) The extent to which the participation of the contractor will expedite the attainment of the purposes of the program;
( b ) The extent to which a waiver of all or any part of such rights in any or all fields of technology is needed to secure the participation of the particular contractor;
( c ) The extent to which the work to be performed under the contract is useful in the production or utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy;
( d ) The extent to which the contractor's commercial position may expedite utilization of the research, development, and demonstration results;
( e ) The extent to which the Government has contributed to the field of technology to be funded under the contract;
( f ) The purpose and nature of the contract, including the intended use of the results developed thereunder;
( g ) The extent to which the contractor has made or will make substantial investment of financial resources or technology developed at the contractor's private expense which will directly benefit the work to be performed under the contract;
( h ) The extent to which the field of technology to be funded under the contract has been developed at the contractor's private expense;
( i ) The extent to which the Government intends to further develop to the point of commercial utilization the results of the contract effort;
( j ) The extent to which the contract objectives are concerned with the public health, public safety, or public welfare;
( k ) The likely effect of the waiver on competition and market concentration;
( l ) In the case of a domestic nonprofit educational institution under an agreement not governed by Chapter 18 of Title 35, United States Code, the extent to which such institution has a technology transfer capability and program approved by the Secretary or designee as being consistent with the applicable policies of this section;
( m ) The small business status of the contractor under an agreement not governed by Chapter 18 of Title 35, United States Code, and
( n ) Such other considerations, such as benefit to the U.S. economy, that the Secretary or designee may deem appropriate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1998       
<CASH>                                              5,015
<SECURITIES>                                    1,962,587
<RECEIVABLES>                                     377,063
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                       445,693
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                2,816,258
<PP&E>                                          1,429,933
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (274,146)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  6,909,137
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           2,822,227
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                           245
<COMMON>                                            3,101
<OTHER-SE>                                      1,289,468
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    6,909,137
<SALES>                                         1,007,890
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                1,007,890
<CGS>                                             631,640
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     793,953
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (135,323)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (537,025)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (537,025)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (537,025)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.17)
        

</TABLE>
H. Res. 745

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 25, 2006.

Whereas over 33,730 people will be diagnosed with pancreatic 

cancer this year in the United States; 

Whereas the mortality rate for pancreatic cancer is 99 percent, the highest of any cancer; 

Whereas pancreatic cancer is the 4th most common cause of 

cancer death in the United States; 

Whereas there are no early detection methods and minimal 

treatment options for pancreatic cancer; 

Whereas when symptoms of pancreatic cancer generally 

present themselves, it is too late for an optimistic prognosis, and the average survival rate of those diagnosed 

with metastasis disease is only 3 to 6 months; 

Whereas pancreatic cancer does not discriminate by age, gender, or race, and only 4 percent of patients survive beyond 5 years; 

Whereas the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN), 

the first national patient advocacy organization serving 

the pancreatic cancer community, focuses its efforts on 

public policy, research funding, patient services, and public awareness and education related to developing effective treatments and a cure for pancreatic cancer; and 
2

•HRES 745 EH 

Whereas the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network has requested that the Congress designate November as Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month in order to educate 

communities across the Nation about pancreatic cancer 

and the need for research funding, early detection methods, effective treatments, and prevention programs: Now, 

therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month. 

Attest:

Clerk.
#### § 902.645 Federal agency or agency.

*Department of Energy* means the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), including the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** The Honorable J. Thomas Marten, District Judge, Uni ted States District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by design ation. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### NOV 21 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
SANTIAGO TAPIA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. KRIS HENIGMAN, NM Department of Corrections Prison Guard,

Defendant-Appellee, and JOHN THOMAS, Warden, officially and individually,

Defendant. No. 97-2049 (D.C. No. CIV-95-1160) (D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO and LUCERO, Circuit Judges, and MARTEN, ** District Judge.-2-

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff-appellant Santiago Tapia, a former state prison inmate, brought this § 1983 action alleging that defendant-appellee Kris Henigman, a correction officer, maliciously beat and kicked him, causing s erious and permanent injuries. The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant. Proceeding pro se on appeal, Tapia seeks a new trial on the grounds that the ver dict is attributable to the ineffective assistance of his counsel. The Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance o f counsel does not apply to civil cases. See MacCuish v. United States , 844 F.2d 733, 735 (10th Cir. 1988). In civil cases, the “remedy for allegedly i ncompetent representation is a malpractice suit against [the] trial attorney. Any such incompetence provides no basis for granting . . . a new trial.” Id. at 735-36. Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. The mandate sh all issue forthwith. Entered for the Court
J. Thomas Marten District Judge
#### § 200.205 Federal awarding agency review of merit of proposals.

For discretionary Federal awards, unless prohibited by Federal statute, the Federal awarding agency must design and execute a merit review process for applications, with the objective of selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives outlined in section § 200.202. A merit review is an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications in accordance with written standards set forth by the Federal awarding agency. This process must be described or incorporated by reference in the applicable funding opportunity (see appendix I to this part.). See also § 200.204. The Federal awarding agency must also periodically review its merit review process.
· ISSUES RELATED TO TEST

PROCEDURE FOR COMMERCIAL

WARM IR FURNACE AS- -

DISCUSSED IN THE NOPR -

January 27, 2000

Stanley T. Liu

NIST

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02CC
Incorporation of SI-IR E1IES

Standard 90.1 Referenced Furnace

Test Standards

• Proposed in NOPR: Test procedures for energy efficiency

as prescribed in the following:

- ANSI Z21.47 -1993 for Gas-fired furnaces

- UL 727-1994 for oil-fired furnaces

• Reasons:

- EPCA specifies adoption of industry test standards referenced by

ASHRAElIES 90.1 and in effect on June 30,1992

- The standards are those referenced by ASHRAE 90.1 for furnaces

- The latest versions of the test standards are proposed since there

is no change in the sections on efficiency test procedure from the

prior versions (before June 30, 1992) of the standards

• Comments during the prior workshops: All support.

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02CC
Definition of Thermal Efficiency

for Commercial Warm Air

Furnaces

• Proposed in NOPR: Define the term Thermal Efficiency for

commercial furnaces as (100 • % Flue Loss).

• Reasons:

- EPCA specifies the minimum standard for commercial warm air

furnaces in term of Thermal Efficiency (the same as in ASHRAE 90.1)

- ASHRAE 90.1 uses thermal efficiency as the efficiency descriptor

- The referenced ANSI Z21.47·1993 explicitly defines thermal efficiency

as equal to (100 • %Flue Loss) in its efficiency test section.

- To eliminate possible confusion with the usual definition of thermal

efficiency as output energy divided by input energy.

• Comments during the prior workshops:

- All support the proposal.

- No jacket loss should be included.

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02CC
Flue Loss Ca~cu!ation for Oil-

.Fired Furnaces

• Proposed in NOPR: Adopting the flue loss calculation

procedure specified in the 1989 Hydronics Institute test

standard for oil fired boilers as the calculation procedure for

oiI fired furnaces.

• Reasons:·

- UL 727 (for oil furnaces) does not provide a method for flue loss

calculation that is needed for determining thermal efficiency.

- The 1989 Hydronics Institute test standard is the ASHRAE 90.1

referenced test standard for oil fired boilers.

- There is no difference in the flue gas analysis for oil-fired heating

equipment (furnace or boiler). .

• Comments during prior workshops: No objection to the

proposal.

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02CC
Optional Test for Gas-Fired

Condensing Furnaces

• Proposed in NOPR: Adopting the steady state test method for

flue condensate measurement specified in ASHRAE 103-1993.

• Reasons:

- To provide a readily available test method for measuring the increased

efficiency for gas-fired condensing furnaces.

- To provide a method for use in the design option evaluation process.

- The referenced test standards do not provide the test method for

condensing furnace

- ASHRAE 103-1993 is the referenced test procedure for residential

,furnaces and is a familiar procedure for the industry.

• Comments during prior workshops: Not needed since no

commercial condensing furnace is produced at the present time.

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02CC
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 877 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 877

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         June 20, 2006.
    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. 5631) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, 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. All 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. When the 
committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation 
that the bill do pass, 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.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 5 E0 00 7 . J HON LEI GH PROPERTI ES, I NC. v

. DAVI S.

J h o n Lei g h Pro p ert ies

, In c., has f iled this emergenc y mo tio n f o r an extensio n

o f time to file an a p p lic atio n f o r d isc retio nary rev iew p u rsu ant to Co u rt o f A p p eals

Ru le 40 ( b). H av ing rev iew ed the mo tio n, w e hereby GRA N T an e xtensio n u ntil

A u gu st 1 3, 2024, in w hic h to f ile an ap p lic atio n f

o r d isc retio nary rev iew

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O ffic e

, A t la n t a

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I c e r t ify t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t

r u e e x t r a c t fr o m

t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

.

W i t n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t

h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. 

## August 13, 2024

08/13/2024
#### § 15.29 Suspension or revocation of license.

In non-bankruptcy cases, the NRC may suspend or revoke any license, permit, or approval which the NRC has granted to the debtor for any inexcusable, prolonged, or repeated failure of the debtor to pay a delinquent debt. Before suspending or revoking any license, permit, or approval for failure to pay a debt, the NRC shall issue to the debtor (by certified mail) an order or a demand for information as to why the license, permit, or approval should not be suspended or revoked. The NRC shall allow the debtor no more than 30 days to pay the debt in full, including applicable interest, penalties, and administrative costs of collection of the delinquent debt. The NRC may revoke the license, permit, or approval at the end of this period. If a license is revoked under authority of this part, a new application, with appropriate fees, must be made to the NRC. The NRC may not consider an application unless all previous delinquent debts of the debtor to the NRC have been paid in full. The suspension or revocation of a license, permit, or approval is also applicable to Federal programs or activities that are administered by the states on behalf of the Federal Government to the extent that they affect the Federal Government's ability to collect money or funds owed by debtors. In bankruptcy cases, before advising the debtor of NRC's intention to suspend or revoke licenses, permits, or approvals, the NRC will seek legal advice from its Office of the General Counsel concerning the impact of the Bankruptcy Code which may restrict such action.

[67 FR 30320, May 6, 2002]
#### § 820.9 Special assistant.

A DOE Official may appoint a person to serve as a special assistant to assist the DOE Official in the conduct of any proceeding under this part. Such appointment may occur at any appropriate time. A special assistant shall be subject to the disqualification provisions in § 820.5. A special assistant may perform those duties assigned by the DOE Official, including but not limited to, serving as technical interrogators, technical advisors and special master.
SERVED: December 17,2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION-.~ 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS ---'.1 :c : f 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SKYWEST AIRLINES 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013- 0612 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Respondent has advised the undersigned the within captioned matter has been settled and 

Respondent has withdrawn its Request for Hearing. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney 

may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the 

consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney withdraws the complaint or 

a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative law judge 

shall dismiss the proceedings under this subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Request to Withdraw Request for Hearing having been 

read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: , 

1. Respondent's Request to Withdraw Request for Hearing be and is hereby granted; 

and 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

Todd C. Emerson, Respondent's Counsel 

Director - Government and Legal Affairs 

SkyWest Airlines, Inc., Respondent 

444 South River Road 

St. George, UT 84 790 

TEL: 435-634-3530 

FAX: 435-634-3505 

Robert Spitzer, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1417 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

ONE COPY 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0612 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

3
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a)

 

I,Adam D. Portnoy, certify that:

 

1.                                       I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hospitality Properties Trust;

 

2.                                       Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; and

 

3.                                       Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report.

 
| Date:  April 3, 2008 |   |  /s/ Adam D. Portnoy |
|---------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                      |   | Adam D. Portnoy           |
|                      |   | Managing  Trustee         |

 

----
#### LAUTERBACH, Respondent, v. JOSEPH FALLERT BREWING CO., Limited, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 22, 1915.)

Action by Amelia Lauterbach against the Joseph Fallert Brewing Company, Limited.

*1126PER CURIAM.

The finding that defendant agreed to purchase the property for $11,000, less the lien, is contrary to the weight of the evidence. In case of a new trial, the question of the liens that should be deducted can be considered, and, among others, the interest on the third mortgage and the sum paid for costs, which do not seem to have been deducted upon the trial already had. Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted; costs to abide the event.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: June 25, 2015 519838 

________________________________

In the Matter of FREDDIE 

HARRIS,

Appellant,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DIVISION OF PAROLE,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: May 5, 2015

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________

Freddie Harris, Attica, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Jonathan D.

Hitsous of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein,

J.), entered July 22, 2014 in Franklin County, which, among other

things, denied petitioner's application for an order to show

cause to commence a CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Petitioner, an inmate, sought to commence a CPLR article 78

proceeding to, among other things, challenge a determination

revoking his parole. Supreme Court declined to issue the order

to show cause, but granted petitioner leave to serve an amended

petition. Petitioner filed an amended petition and Supreme Court

denied his application for an order to show cause and dismissed

the petition and amended petition. Petitioner now appeals.

Generally, no appeal lies from the denial of an ex parte

application for an order to show cause (see Matter of Walker v

Fischer, 104 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2013]; Matter of Tafari v Rock, 87
-2- 519838 

AD3d 792, 792 [2011], lv dismissed 17 NY3d 950 [2011]). 

Petitioner's attempt to appeal falls within this rule, and his

appeal must be dismissed (see Matter of Walker v Fischer, 104

AD3d at 1002).

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court