alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: November 13, 2014 TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket I d: OAR

–2013
- 0602 FROM: EPA Region 1 SUBJECT: November 13, 2014 , Meeting with Massachusetts State Staff Regarding Proposed

Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
**SUMMARY** A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on November 13, 2014 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
. Discussion covered the energy efficiency

calculations and integration of load growth over time
. **ATTENDEES (all by phone)**  **:** Massachusetts: Seth Federspiel Alissa Whiteman EPA: Shutsu Wong Cy nthia Greene John Moskal Bob McConnell Joe Bry son Beth Conlin Questions from the state are attached.
<Page>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this initial filing to this Registration
Statement of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company Separate Account
Seven of our report dated March 26, 2003, relating to the financial
statements of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company, and of
our report dated February 21, 2003, relating to the financial statements of
Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company Separate Account Seven, appearing
in the Statement of Additional Information, which is a part of such
Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under the heading
"Independent Public Accountants" in such Statement of Additional Information.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Hartford, Connecticut

April 7, 2003
#### Barry D. Greene, Trustee (Estate of George F. Colby) *v.*Alfred W. Cavedon et al.

*John A. Spector,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Mark S. Shipman,*for the appellant (named defendant) .

Argued January 7

decided January 7, 1969

The motion by the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is denied.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Aakil Holdings Trust/Raymond Groves and Norris Groves v. 2011 Homes, LLC

Appellate case number: 01

- 22

- 00356

- CV

Trial court case number: 1182819

Trial court: Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 4 of Harris County

Appellant Norris Groves filed a notice of appeal on his own behalf and on behalf of the Aakil Holdings Trust and Raymond Groves. The clerk’s record also indicates that Norris Groves
is the executor of the Estate of Betty J. Groves. On June 28, 2022, Norris Groves filed an appellants’ brief on behalf of Aakil Holdings Trust and the Estate of Betty J. Groves.

A non

- attorney pro se is prohibited from appearing in an appellate court in the capacity of

e xecutor of an estate, as trustee of a trust, or on behalf of other persons. See In re Guetersloh , 326 S.W.3d 737, 740 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2010, orig. proceeding). This is because a pro se who attempts to represent others or attempts to act on behalf of a trust or estate is necessarily engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. See id.

Accordingly, the Court strikes appellants’ brief filed on June 28, 2022 because Norris
Groves has asserted issues on behalf of the Aakil Holdings Trust, the Estate of Betty J. Groves,
and Raymond Groves

. Norris Groves may refile the appellant’s brief raising issues on his own behalf and if he chooses to do so, the revised appellant’s brief will be due in 30 days from the
date of this order

. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

_____

/s/ Peter Kelly



### _____  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___ August 23, 2022

____
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled

# AGENCY:

Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

# ACTION:

Appointment of Performance Review Board for Senior Executive Service.

# SUMMARY:

The Committee For Purchase from People Who Are Blind Or Severely Disabled (Committee) has announced the following appointments to the Committee Performance Review Board.

The following individuals are appointed as members of the Committee Performance Review Board responsible for making recommendations to the appointing and awarding authorities on performance appraisal ratings and performance awards for Senior Executive Service employees:

Perry E. Anthony, Ph.D., Deputy Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration, Department of Education.

Abram Claude, Jr., Private Citizen

Paul M. Laird, Assistant Director, Industries, Education and Vocational Training and Chief Operating Officer/FPI, Department of Justice.

All appointments are made pursuant to Section 4314 of Chapter 43 of Title 5 of the United States Code.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         March 10, 2010.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Patricia Briscoe, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or e-mail                         *CMTEFedReg@abilityone.gov.*

Patricia Briscoe,

Deputy Director, Business Operations.

[FR Doc. 2010-4919 Filed 3-8-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
# C_2014261EN.01004501.xml

| 11.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/45

---

Appeal brought on 20 June 2014 by Risto Nieminen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 April 2014 in Case F-81/12, Nieminen v Council

Nieminen

Council

(Case T-464/14 P)

2014/C 261/71

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Risto Nieminen (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by M. de Abreu Caldas, D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 10 April 2014 in Case F-81/12 (Risto Nieminen v Council); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 10 April 2014 in Case F-81/12 (Risto Nieminen v Council);

Risto Nieminen

Council

| — | order the Council to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.

| 1. | First ground of appeal: infringement of the rights of the defence, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal found that the appellant had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show that there had been a manifest error of assessment, even though it was aware that the appellant was not really in a position to do so and despite its refusal to compel the defendant at first instance to produce all the documents relevant for the purposes of determining whether that plea was well founded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal: infringement of the rights of the defence, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal found that the appellant had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show that there had been a manifest error of assessment, even though it was aware that the appellant was not really in a position to do so and despite its refusal to compel the defendant at first instance to produce all the documents relevant for the purposes of determining whether that plea was well founded.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal: distortion of the evidence and the facts. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal: distortion of the evidence and the facts.

---
#### § 807.39 Misbranding by reference to establishment registration or to registration number.

Registration of a device establishment or assignment of a registration number does not in any way denote approval of the establishment or its products. Any representation that creates an impression of official approval because of registration or possession of a registration number is misleading and constitutes misbranding.
ROGER HAMILTON VOSS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-2698

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 6, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Suwannee County.

David W. Fina, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Courtenay H. Miller, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, CLARK, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2327

PAUL M. BLOWE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KIMBERLY R. PATTERSON,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 96-2328

PAUL M. BLOWE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JEFFREY L. STREDLER,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 96-2329

PAUL M. BLOWE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
2
3

VIRGINIA STATE BAR, Second District Committee,

Section II,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 96-2330

PAUL M. BLOWE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Department of Transportation Roads Right of Way VDOT Engineering

by James C. Cleveland,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-96-633-2, CA-96-634-2, CA-96-635-2, CA-96-636-2)

Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: January 28, 1997

Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul M. Blowe, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
4

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's orders dismissing his

four 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaints. Appellant's cases were

referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

(1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and

advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court

order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the district court. 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
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.6185 Cast cover. ( a ) *Identification.* A cast cover is a device intended for medical purposes that is made of waterproof material and placed over a cast to protect it from getting wet during a shower or a bath.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 880.9. If the device is not labeled or otherwise represented as sterile, it is also exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[45 FR 69682, Oct. 21, 1980, as amended at 66 FR 38806, July 25, 2001]
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7830 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the surviving spouse 

filing status to individuals whose spouses have died within the last 

five taxable years. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2024 

Mr. VAN DREW introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 

the surviving spouse filing status to individuals whose 

spouses have died within the last five taxable years. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect American Wid5 ows Act of 2024’’ or the ‘‘PAW Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SURVIVING SPOUSE DEFINITION EXPANDED. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2(a)(1)(A) of the Internal 

8 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘two tax9 able years’’ and inserting ‘‘five taxable years’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7830 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to returns filed for taxable years 

3 beginning after December 31, 2023. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.6400 Calibration gas. ( a ) *Identification.* A calibration gas is a device consisting of a container of gas of known concentration intended to calibrate medical gas concentration measurement devices.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 868.9.
[47 FR 31142, July 16, 1982, as amended at 61 FR 1121, Jan. 16, 1996; 66 FR 38796, July 25, 2001]
§ 884.1060 Endometrial aspirator. ( a ) *Identification.* An endometrial aspirator is a device designed to remove materials from the endometrium (the mucosal lining of the uterus) by suction with a syringe, bulb and pipette, or catheter. This device is used to study endometrial cytology (cells).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II. The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) FDA's: ( i ) “Use of International Standard ISO 10993 ‘Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices—Part I: Evaluation and Testing,’ ” and
( ii ) “510(k) Sterility Review Guidance of 2/12/90 (K90-1),”
( 2 ) Labeling: ( i ) Indication: Only to evaluate the endometrium, and
( ii ) Contraindications: Pregnancy, history of uterine perforation, or a recent cesarean section, and
( 3 ) The sampling component is covered within vagina.
[45 FR 12684, Feb. 26, 1980, as amended at 52 FR 17741, May 11, 1987; 65 FR 17146, Mar. 31, 2000]
Annual Statement as to Compliance
For the Period of January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016









COMM 2015-CCRE25









In accordance with Item 1123 of Regulation AB and with
the requirements detailed in §10.11 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) for the above-mentioned
CMBS pool, (the “CMBS Pool”), CWCapital Asset Management LLC (“CWCAM”), in its capacity as Special Servicer,
is providing this Officer’s Certificate with respect to the following:



| | (A) | a review of CWCAM’s activities during the preceding calendar year or portion thereof (the
“Reporting Period”) and of CWCAM’s performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision
and;
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (B) | that, to the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, CWCAM has fulfilled
all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate
to contact us.



Sincerely,

CWCapital Asset Management LLC



David B. Iannarone

President



































7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 500 West, Bethesda, MD 20814
www.cwcapital.com
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 20

- 00310

- CV

___________________________

Ori ginal Proceeding

324th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 324

- 633446

- 18

Before Wallach, Gab riel, and Bassel, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### I N RE 

### P ATRICIA 

### K INZLMAIER 

### , Relator2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and mo tion

for emergency relief and is of the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly,

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency relief are denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered : October 8, 2020
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.5910 Image intensification vision aid. ( a ) *Identification.* An image intensification vision aid is a battery-powered device intended for use by a patient who has limited dark adaptation or impaired vision to amplify ambient light.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 886.9. The device is also exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[52 FR 33355, Sept. 2, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 35607, Sept. 14, 1988; 66 FR 38814, July 25, 2001]
# Fourth Court of Appeals

S an Antonio, Texas

August 17, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00741

- CV

Edward R. MEZA Jr., Sylvia Meza, and New Braunfels Home Health, Inc. d/b/a N.B. Home

Health

, Appellants

v.

HONORCARE HOME HEALTH INC

.,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 376006 Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

After this court granted one previous extension, appellee’s brief was due August 15,

2018. On the due date, appellee filed a second motion for extension of time, asking for an additional seven days in which to file the brief. The motion is unopposed. After review, we

GRANT appellee’s motion and ORDER appellee to file its brief in this court on or before August 22, 2018.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WI TNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 17th day of August, 201 8

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Cou rt
<Page>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Pre-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration
Statement No. 333-101947 of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company Separate
Account Ten of our report dated March 26, 2003, relating to the financial
statements of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company, and of our report
dated February 21, 2003, relating to the financial statements of Hartford Life
and Annuity Insurance Company Separate Account Ten, appearing in the Statement
of Additional Information, which is a part of such Registration Statement, and
to the reference to us under the heading "Independent Public Accountants" in
such Statement of Additional Information.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Hartford, Connecticut

April 7, 2003
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.5150 Intravascular occluding catheter. ( a ) *Identification.* An intravascular occluding catheter is a catheter with an inflatable or detachable balloon tip that is used to block a blood vessel to treat malformations, e.g., aneurysms (balloonlike sacs formed on blood vessels) of intracranial blood vessels.
( b ) *Classification.* Class III (premarket approval).
( c ) *Date PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required.* A PMA or a notice of completion of a PDP is required to be filed with the Food and Drug Administration on or before December 26, 1996 for any intravascular occluding catheter that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or that has, on or before December 26, 1996 been found to be substantially equivalent to an intravascular occluding catheter that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other intravascular occluding catheter shall have an approved PMA or a declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.
[44 FR 51730, Sept. 4, 1979, as amended at 52 FR 17740, May 11, 1987; 61 FR 50708, Sept. 27, 1996]
# C_2016016EN.01003401.xml

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2015 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Rodriguez and Barranco Schnitzler (Matratzen Concord)

(Case T-526/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the Community word mark Matratzen Concord - Earlier national word marks MATRATZEN - Relative ground of refusal - Proof of use - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 016/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I. Selting, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Mariano Barranco Rodriguez (Sant Just Desvern, Spain) and Pablo Barranco Schnitzler (Sant Just Desvern) (represented by: J. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 April 2014 (Case R 1523/2013-1) relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Mariano Barranco Rodriguez and Pablo Barranco Schnitzler and, on the other hand, Matratzen Concord GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Matratzen Concord GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Matratzen Concord GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

1

---