alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 172
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 172 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; 70 FR 72074, Dec. 1, 2005; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 172.215 Coumarone-indene resin. The food additive coumarone-indene resin may be safely used on grapefruit, lemons, limes, oranges, tangelos, and tangerines in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) The food additive is manufactured by the polymerization of a crude, heavy coal-tar solvent naphtha meeting the following specifications: ( 1 ) It is a mixture of indene, indan (hydrindene), substituted benzenes, and related compounds.
( 2 ) It contains no more than 0.25 percent tar bases.
( 3 ) 95 percent distills in the range 167 °C-184 °C.
( b ) The food additive meets the following specifications: ( 1 ) Softening point, ring and ball: 126 °C minimum as determined by ASTM method E28-67 (Reapproved 1982), “Standard Test Method for Softening Point by Ring-and-Ball Apparatus,” which is incorporated by reference. Copies may be obtained from the American Society for Testing Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, Philadelphia, PA 19428-2959, or may be examined at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( 2 ) Refractive index (*n* 25/*D*) 1.63-1.64.
( c ) It is used or intended for use as a protective coating for grapefruit, lemons, limes, oranges, tangelos, and tangerines whereby the maximum amount of the resin remaining on the fruit does not exceed 200 parts per million on a fresh-weight basis.
( d ) To assure safe use of the additive: ( 1 ) The label of the market package or any intermediate premix of the additive shall bear, in addition to the other information required by the act: ( i ) The name of the additive, coumarone-indene resin.
( ii ) A statement of the concentration of the additive therein.
( 2 ) The label or accompanying labeling shall bear adequate directions that, if followed, will result in a finished food not in conflict with the requirements of this section.
[42 FR 14491, Mar. 15, 1977, as amended at 49 FR 10103, Mar. 19, 1984]
§ 1004.1 Manufacturer's obligation to repair, replace, or refund cost of electronic products. ( a ) If any electronic product fails to comply with an applicable Federal standard or has a defect and the notification specified in § 1003.10(b) of this chapter is required to be furnished, the manufacturer of such product shall; ( 1 ) Without charge, bring such product into conformity with such standard or remedy such defect and provide reimbursement for any expenses for transportation of such product incurred in connection with having such product brought into conformity or having such defect remedied; or
( 2 ) Replace such product with a like or equivalent product which complies with each applicable Federal standard and which has no defect relating to the safety of its use; or
( 3 ) Make a refund of the cost of the product to the purchaser.
( b ) The manufacturer shall take the action required by this section in accordance with a plan approved by the Secretary pursuant to § 1004.6.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00369-CR

Rickey Paul Robinson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR2005-355, HONORABLE GARY L. STEEL, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

On July 18, 2006, appellant Rickey Paul Robinson was placed on deferred

adjudication community supervision after he pleaded guiltyto burglary of a building. SeeTex. Penal

Code Ann. § 30.02 (West 2003). The original term of supervision was 540 days, but the term was

twice extended by the trial court. On May 27, 2010, following a hearing on the State’s motion

to adjudicate, the court adjudged appellant guilty and assessed punishment at twenty months in

state jail.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a

brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), bypresenting a professional evaluation of the record

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State,
516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972);

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s

brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. See

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Garner v. State, 300

S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw

is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

____________________________________________

J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Henson and Goodwin

Affirmed

Filed: March 24, 2011

Do Not Publish

2
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01
                                                                   -------------

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-92902, No. 333-14323, No. 333-18871, No.
333-42819, No. 333-46875, No. 333-50623, No. 333-62195, No. 333-71923, No.
333-80965, No. 333-89165, No. 333-33952, No. 333-40344, No. 333-41388, No.
333-45442, No. 333-55398 and No. 333-62492) of HNC Software Inc. of our report
dated January 24, 2001, except as to Note 15, to which the date is March 6,
2001, relating to the financial statements of HNC Software Inc., which appears
in this Form 10-K/A.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


San Diego, California
February 14, 2002
Editorial Note on Part 12
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 12 appear at 88 FR 45064, July 14, 2023.

§ 12.130 Decision by Commissioner on appeal or review of initial decision. ( a ) On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the Commissioner has all the powers given to make the initial decision. On the Commissioner's own initiative or on motion, the Commissioner may remand the matter to the presiding officer for any further action necessary for a proper decision.
( b ) The scope of the issues on appeal is the same as the scope of the issues at the public hearing unless the Commissioner specifies otherwise.
( c ) As soon as possible after the filing of briefs and any oral argument, the Commissioner will issue a final decision in the proceeding, which meets the requirements established in § 12.120 (b) and (c).
( d ) The Commissioner may adopt the initial decision as the final decision.
( e ) Notice of the Commissioner's decision will be published in the Federal Register, or the Commissioner may publish the decision when it is of widespread interest.
Amended 2006 Incentive Compensation Program for William G. Cornely



 Exhibit 10.4 
 Dominion Homes, Inc. 
 Amended 2006 Incentive Compensation Program 
 William G. Cornely, Senior Vice President of Finance and CFO 
 Net Income (40% of Total) 
  

				
	 Goal
	  	Award
	 Target
	  	$	30,000
	 Stretch
	  	$	75,000
	 Exceptional
	  	$	125,000

 Corporate Debt Management (40% of Total) 
  

				
	 Goal
	  	Award
	 100% of Target Debt Reduction
	  	$	30,000
	 133% of Target Debt Reduction
	  	$	75,000
	 166% of Target Debt Reduction
	  	$	125,000

 Customer Satisfaction (20% of Total) 
  

				
	 Goal
	  	Award
	 94%
	  	$	15,000
	 95%
	  	$	37,500
	 96%
	  	$	62,500
Exhibit
      10.2

    


    COMPENSATION
      ARRANGEMENT FOR WILLIAM W. DUNCAN, JR.

    


    Talbot
      Bank of Easton, Maryland (the “Bank”) and William W. Duncan, Jr., the Bank’s
      President and Chief Executive Officer, are not party to a written employment
      agreement. Mr. Duncan’s employment arrangement provides for an annual salary of
      $245,000, subject to annual adjustment. Mr. Duncan is also entitled to
      participate in the bonus program, profit sharing and 401(k) plan, and group
      term
      life insurance program of Shore Bancshares, Inc., to the extent the provisions
      and rules of those plans and programs permit such
      participation.
# EUR-Lex - 31992R0840 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31992R0840

**Commission Regulation (EEC) No 840/92 of 1 April 1992 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature **

*
Official Journal L 088 , 03/04/1992 P. 0029 - 0030 Finnish special edition: Chapter 2 Volume 8 P. 0120 Swedish special edition: Chapter 2 Volume 8 P. 0120 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 840/92

of 1 April 1992

concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined nomenclature

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 627/92 (2), and in particular Article 9,

Whereas in order to ensure uniform application of the combined nomenclature annexed to the said Regulation, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in Annex to this Regulation;

Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has set down the general rules for the interpretation of the combined nomenclature and these rules also apply to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivisions to it and which is established by specific Community provisions, which a view to the application of tariff or other measures relating to trade in goods;

Whereas, pursuant to the said general rules, the goods described in column 1 of the table annexed to the present Regulation must be classified under the appropriate CN codes indicated in column 2, by virtue of the reasons set out in column 3;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Nomenclature Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The goods described in column 1 of the annexed table are now classified within the combined nomenclature under the appropriate CN codes indicated in column 2 of the said table.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 21st day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 1 April 1992. For the Commission

Christiane SCRIVENER

Member of the Commission

ANNEX

>TABLE>

(1) Photo is of a purely illustrative nature.
§ 136.3 Definitions. For purposes of this part, the following definitions apply: ( a ) The word *bread* when used in the name of the food means the unit weighs one-half pound or more after cooling.
( b ) The words *rolls* and *buns* when used in the name of the food mean the unit weighs less than one-half pound after cooling.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 2067

SHEILA M. MARSHALL , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND MEDICAL CENTER , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Theodore D. Chuang , District Judge. ( 1:17

- cv - 02779

- TDC )

Submitted : February 24, 2022 Decided: March 15, 2022

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING , Circuit Judges.

Remanded by un published per curiam opinion

. Sheila M. Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas William Desmarais, Kerstin Marie Miller, SMITH & DOWNEY, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sheila M. Marshall seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant on her civil complaint. In a civil case, a party must file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the judgment or order being appealed, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement .” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court entered judgment on August 31, 2020. Marshall therefore had until September 30, 2020, to file a notice of appeal. The district court filed Marshall’s appeal on October 2, 2020, outside of the appeal period. However, a court security officer stamp on the envelope creates some ambiguity as to when the district court clerk received Marshall’s notice of appeal . Accordingly, we remand the case to allow the district court to determine the da te on which Marshall filed the notice of appeal. Additionally, a district court may extend the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(5) if a party moves for an extension of time within 30 days of the expiration of the appeal period and shows excusable neglect o r good cause. Marshall filed a letter on September 28, 2020, that we construe as a motion to extend the appeal period. I f the district court determines that the district court clerk did not receive the notice of appeal within the appeal period, then the district court should then determine whether the requirements of Rule 4(a)(5) are satisfied. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.
REMANDED
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 175 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 175

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         March 8, 2017.
    Resolved, That at any time after 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. 725) to amend title 28, United States Code, to prevent fraudulent 
joinder. 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 chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under 
the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in 
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order 
against such amendments are waived. 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.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 10.117

[ COMPANY LETTERHEAD ]

May 9,
2002

Southwall
Technologies Inc.
1029 Corporation Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303

|ATTN: | Thomas G. Hood
President and Chief Executive Officer
|----- | ----------------------------------------------------

Dear
Mr. Hood:

This
letter is written with references to the Guarantee Agreement dated as of May 6, 1997, between Southwall Technologies, Inc. ("STI") and Teijin Limited ("Teijin") as amended in August 1999
by Memorandum between STI and Teijin (such Guarantee, as amended, the "Guarantee Agreement").

STI
has advised Teijin that, as of December 31, 2001 and March 31, 2002, it was not in compliance with the Minimum Quick Ratio, Tangible Net Worth Amount and Maximum Debt/Tangible Net
Worth of the financial covenants in Article 4-1(1) of the Guarantee Agreement. STI has requested that Teijin waive STI's non-compliance through September 30, 2003, including, without
limitation, the measurement periods ending on December 31, 2001 and March 31, 2002.

Subject
to the conditions set forth below, this will confirm that Teijin hereby waives any defaults under Article 5.1 of the Guarantee Agreement that may exist through and including
September 30, 2003, arising out of STI's failure to comply with the financial covenants of the Minimum Quick Ratio, Tangible Net Worth Amount and Maximum Debt Tangible Net Worth in
Article 4-(1) of the Guarantee Agreement.

This
waiver does not apply to any period after September 30, 2003, after which Teijin shall be entitled to enforce its rights under the Guarantee Agreement with respect to STI's non-compliance
with one or more of such covenants for the any measurement period starting after September 30, 2003. This waiver is solely and exclusively for the purpose of the Guarantee Agreement and without
prejudice to any other rights that Teijin has or may have against STI.

In
addition, this waiver is conditioned on STI's agreement that, 1) in the event that is issues new capital to third parties in a public offering of its equity securities at any time prior to
September 30, 2003, STI shall apply $2.5 million of the proceeds of the offering to the prepayment of the 2004 installments of the Sanwa loan and 2) in the event that it issues new
capital to third parties in one or more transactions other than a public offering of its equity securities at any time prior to September 30, 2003, STI shall apply 10% of the aggregate proceeds
of such offerings to the prepayment of the 2004 installments of the Sanwa loan. STI hereby confirms its obligation to make scheduled payments in accordance with the terms of the Sanwa loan.

Very truly yours,

Teijin
Limited

/s/
Y. Kobayashi

By
Yakio Kobayashi
    Assistant to General Manager

---

QuickLinks
§ 1271.170 Personnel. ( a ) *General.* You must have personnel sufficient to ensure compliance with the requirements of this part.
( b ) *Competent performance of functions.* You must have personnel with the necessary education, experience, and training to ensure competent performance of their assigned functions. Personnel must perform only those activities for which they are qualified and authorized.
( c ) *Training.* You must train all personnel, and retrain as necessary, to perform their assigned responsibilities adequately.
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


April 26, 2017


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 315


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the series of Smart Trust set forth above (the “Trust”). We enclosed a list
of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such
Securities as of close of business on April 25, 2017, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the Standard Terms and
Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the
evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-215958) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO________________


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7100 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2024 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the organization of the Office of Survivors Assistance of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

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


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 7100 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prioritizing Veterans’ 

3 Survivors Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF ORGANIZATION OF THE OFFICE 

5 OF SURVIVORS ASSISTANCE OF THE DEPART6 MENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

7 Section 321(a) of title 38, United States Code, is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘in the Department’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘in the Office of the Secretary’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Joginder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-71133.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted on Oct. 11, 2005.*

Decided Oct. 21, 2005.

Martin Resendez Guajardo, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, La-guna Niguel, CA, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of *554Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: HALL, T.G. NELSON and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Joginder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen his deportation proceedings. We review for abuse of discretion, *see Singh v. INS,*213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s second motion to reopen because it was numerically barred, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and filed six years after the applicable deadline, *see id.*Accordingly, the agency’s refusal to reopen Singh’s deportation proceedings was not “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.” *See Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002).

We do not consider Singh’s contention that his motion to reopen was based on lack of proper service and, therefore, not subject to the time and numerical limitations because this contention was already considered in his prior petition for review in *Singh v. Gonzales,*No. 01-71750 (9th Cir. Mar. 21, 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.