alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 782.30 What policies and procedures must I follow?

(a) *General.* You must follow the policies and procedures specified in applicable sections of the OMB guidance in Subparts A through F of 2 CFR part 182, as implemented by this part.

(b) *Specific sections of OMB guidance that this part supplements.* In implementing the OMB guidance in 2 CFR part 182, this part supplements four sections of the guidance, as shown in the following table. For each of those sections, you must follow the policies and procedures in the OMB guidance, as supplemented by this part.

| Section of OMB guidance | Section in this part where supplemented | What the supplementation clarifies |
| --- | --- | --- |
| (1) 2 CFR 182.225(a) | § 782.225 | Whom in USAID a recipient other than an individual must notify if an employee is convicted for a violation of a criminal drug statute in the workplace. |
| (2) 2 CFR 182.300(b) | § 782.300 | Whom in USAID a recipient who is an individual must notify if he or she is convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any award activity. |
| (3) 2 CFR 182.500 | § 782.500 | Who in USAID is authorized to determine that a recipient other than an individual is in violation of the requirements of 2 CFR part 182, as implemented by this part. |
| (4) 2 CFR 182.505 | § 782.505 | Who in USAID is authorized to determine that a recipient who is an individual is in violation of the requirements of 2 CFR part 182, as implemented by this part. |

(c) *Sections of the OMB guidance that this part does not supplement.* For any section of OMB guidance in Subparts A through F of 2 CFR part 182 that is not listed in paragraph (b) of this section, USAID policies and procedures are the same as those in the OMB guidance.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-11-00359-CV

In re J. L. Cox

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

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

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Henson and Goodwin

Filed: June 17, 2011
### Water resources of the Albany-Schenectady-Troy area, New York

By: Henry Nicholas HalbergO. P. HuntF. H. Pauszek

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1499D

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
### NUMBER 13 - 14 - 00 575 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE STATE FARM LLOYDS AND RICHARD FREYMANN

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1
Relator s , State Farm Lloyds and Richard Freymann, have filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that this Court direct respondent, the Honorable Rose Guerra Reyna, Presiding Judge of the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, to withdraw her order denying relators ’ verified plea in abatement and to enter an order abating the suit for damages brought agai nst relator s by the real part ies in i nterest, Rogelio Hinojosa and Maria Hinojo sa, u ntil sixty days after t he y provide relator s with a notice letter for their

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ” ); T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.4 (distingu ishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2

claim stating the specific, separate amounts for the claimed damages and attorney’s fees. See T EX

. I NS

. C ODE A NN . § 541.154 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.) (“Prior Notice of Action”); id. § 541.155 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.) (“Abatement”); T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.1 (“Commencement” of Original Proceedings). In addition, relator s request that this Court iss ue immediate temporary relief staying respondent’s order denying the plea in abatement. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.10 (“Temporary Relief”).
T he Court, having examined and fully considered th e petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the o pinion that th e petition for writ of mandamus should be denied for the reasons expressed in our opinion in In re State Farm Lloyds, Richard Freymann, and Nathan Burris , No . 13

- 14

- 00347

- CV, 2014 WL 4243701 , at ** 4

– 9 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi Aug. 27, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op ). Accordingly, the Court DENIES the petit ion for writ of mandamus and request for immediate temporary relief

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 52.8( d ).

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 3rd day of October , 2014.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AS OF, AND
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                              56
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,244
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,800
<INVENTORY>                                     10,608
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,074
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,178
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,004
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           147
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,973)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,178
<SALES>                                         11,182
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,182
<CGS>                                            7,532
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,532
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,928
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    48
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 256
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,534)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,534)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,534)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 619-620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33276]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 06/06-0335]


Escalate Capital Partners SBIC I, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption 
Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of 
Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Escalate Capital Partners, SBIC I, 
L.P., 300 W. 6th Street, Suite 2250, Austin, TX 78701, a Federal 
Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended 
(``the Act''), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has 
sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, 
Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). 
Escalate Capital Partners, SBIC I, L.P. proposes to provide debt 
security financing to LDR Holding Corporation, 4030 West Braker Lane, 
Suite 360, Austin, TX 78759. The financing is contemplated to provide 
capital for operations and expansion.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec.  107.730(a)(1) 
of the Regulations because AV-EC Partners I, L.P., an Associate of 
Escalate Capital

[[Page 620]]

Partners, SBIC I, L.P., owns more than ten percent of LDR Holding 
Corporation. Therefore, this transaction is considered a financing of 
an Associate requiring an exemption.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction within fifteen days of the date of 
this publication to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. 
Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20416.

    Dated: December 29, 2010.
Sean Greene,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 2010-33276 Filed 1-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0964 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-CE-035-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
38291.

#### LORENZ v. DeKALB COUNTY.

Gardner, Presiding Judge.

Paul Raymond Lorenz filed a suit against certain named members of the Board of Education of DeKalb County, Cleve E. Bradley and Rex E. Coger, a partnership, and against DeKalb County. This was a suit for damages to'realty and application for a permanent injunction. To the petition the defendant DeKalb County filed general and special demurrers and a plea and answer. The trial court sustained the general demurrers and dismissed DeKalb County as a party defendant. It is to this order that the case is here for review. The petition alleges substantially that the plaintiff owned a lot adjacent to the lot on which the defendant erected a school plant.. It is alleged that the erection of the school plant damaged the plaintiff’s adjacent property, which was his home. It is alleged also that the defendant, in erecting the plant, built up the land approximately twenty feet and caused the water from that property to drain on the plaintiff’s property; that before the school plant was built the plaintiff’s property was worth $15,500 and that afterwards it was worth only $14,000. The suit is brought for the difference.

The record shows that the work on the school plant began in 1954 and that the water has continued to overflow on the plaintiff’s property at intervals since that time and that the most recent flooding was in 1958. Demurrers were filed to the plaintiff’s petition, which demurrers were sustained by the trial court, and the petition was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the ground that the plaintiff’s cause of action was barred by the statute of limitation. The allegations of the petition show clearly that the claim was not filed within the statutory time. On this question *Code*§ 23-1602 provides: “All claims against counties must be presented within 12 months after they accrue or become payable, or the same are barred . . .” See also *Floyd County v. Fincher,*169 Ga. 460 (150 S. E. 577) and *Bibb County v. Greene,*42 Ga. App. 552 (156 S. E. 745).

The court did not err in sustaining the demurrers and dismissing the petition. The action was barred by the statute of limitation.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Townsend, Carlisle, and Frankum, JJ., concur.*

*10Decided June 29,1960.

*Zachary & Hunter, W. E. Zachary,*for plaintiff in. error.

*George P. Dillard, W. Dan Greer,*contra.
###### Editorial Note on Part 112

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 112 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

#### § 112.112 What measures must I take immediately prior to and during harvest activities?

You must take all measures reasonably necessary to identify, and not harvest, covered produce that is reasonably likely to be contaminated with a known or reasonably foreseeable hazard, including steps to identify and not harvest covered produce that is visibly contaminated with animal excreta. At a minimum, identifying and not harvesting covered produce that is reasonably likely to be contaminated with animal excreta or that is visibly contaminated with animal excreta requires a visual assessment of the growing area and all covered produce to be harvested, regardless of the harvest method used.
§ 1.73 Food. ( a ) *Food contact substances.* An ACE filer must submit the information specified in § 1.72 at the time of filing entry in ACE for food that is a food contact substance.
( b ) *Low-acid canned food.* For an article of food that is a low-acid canned food, the ACE filer must submit at the time of filing entry the Food Canning Establishment Number and the Submission Identifier, and can dimensions or volume, except that the ACE filer does not need to submit this information in ACE at the time of entry if the article is being imported or offered for import for laboratory analysis only and will not be taste tested or otherwise ingested.
( c ) *Acidified food.* For an article of food that is an acidified food, the ACE filer must submit at the time of filing entry the Food Canning Establishment Number and the Submission Identifier, and can dimensions or volume, except that the ACE filer does not need to submit this information in ACE at the time of entry if the article is being imported or offered for import for laboratory analysis only and will not be taste tested or otherwise ingested.
38428.

#### LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY *et al.*v. ELROD.

Decided September 27, 1960

Rehearing denied October 10, 1960.

*Henry A. Stewart, Sr.,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Forrest C. Oates, Jr., James I. Parker,*contra.

Nichols, Judge.

The contention is made that the award of compensation was error because the claimant failed to give the employer notice in accordance with *Code*§ 114-303. In the present case the deputy director, as well as the full board, made the *549following finding: “I further find that the claimant gave notice of the fact that he fell in the mill to- his immediate supervisor wi-thin the time prescribed by law which was sufficient to- constitute the required notice.” This finding was authorized by the evidence and such notice was sufficient to allow the employer to make an investigation had the employer seen fit to- do so. Accordingly, this contention of the employer and insurer is without merit.

In *Hartford Accident &c. Co. v. Waters,*87 Ga. App. 117 (73 S. E. 2d 70), it was held: “Where there was no expert opinion to the effect that the exertion contributed to- the attack, unless and until some method is developed to- ascertain with some degree of certainty -that such an -attack is not contributed to by exertion, we think that knowledge from human experience, including medical caution against exertion in such cases and the admitted opinion of experts that exertion might contribute to such an attack, authorized the finding in this case, on the weight of reasonable probabilities, that the amount of exertion in this case contributed to the cerebral hemorrhage which caused the deceased’s death. See *Bussey v. Globe Indemnity Co.,*81 Ga. App. 401, 405 (59 S. E. 2d 34); *Lumbermen’s Mutual Cas. Co. v. Bridges,*81 Ga. App. 395, 400 (58 S. E. 2d 849); *Fidelity & Cas. Co. v. Adams,*70 Ga. App. 297, 298 (28 S. E. 2d 79); *Travelers Ins. Co. v. Young, 77*Ga. App. 512 (48 S. E. 2d 748); *Williams v. Maryland Cas. Co.,*67 Ga. App. 649 (21 S. E. 2d 478).” The evidence in the present case was that the claimant had climbed two or three flights of stairs and developed a shortness of breath, became dizzy and fell. Based on a hypothetical question a physician testified that the claimant suffered a cerebral vascular accident (stroke) which caused his fall, and that, as outlined in the question, it was the exertion which caused the cerebral vascular accident. The physician, who had treated the claimant since the accident testified that he was totally disabled. It cannot be sa-id that the-re was no evidence to- support the award, and where there is any competent evidence to support an award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation, no error of law appearing, neither the superior court nor this court can disturb such award.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Bell, J. concur.*
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00167-CV

RICHARD URIBE

v.

BRIAR-RIDGE, LLC

On Appeal from the

197th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2017-DCL-04845

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 18, 2021
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 504 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 504

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     September 7, 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 further consideration 
of the bill (H.R. 3354) making appropriations for the Department of the 
Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2018, and for other purposes.
    Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order 
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
resolution, amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution, and 
available pro forma amendments described in section 4 of House Resolution 500.
    (b) Each further amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
shall be considered 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, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time 
before action thereon, shall not be subject to amendment except amendments 
described in section 4 of House Resolution 500, and shall not be subject to a 
demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
Whole.
    (c) All points of order against further amendments printed in the report of 
the Committee on Rules or against amendments en bloc described in section 3 of 
this resolution are waived.
    Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the Committee on 
Appropriations or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further 
amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this 
section shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Appropriations or their respective designees, shall not be subject to 
amendment except amendments described in section 4 of House Resolution 500, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
the Committee of the Whole.
    Sec. 4.  At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
further 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.
```