alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: XILINX, INC., XILINX ASIA PACIFIC PTE. 

LTD.,

Appellants

______________________

2022-1857

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-

01596.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of appellants’ motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b),

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Case: 22-1857 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 01/09/2023
2 IN RE: XILINX, INC.

The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

January 9, 2023

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: January 9, 2023

cc: United States Patent and Trademark Office

Case: 22-1857 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 01/09/2023
1 15A NCAC 02D .0410 is proposed for amendment as published in 29:20 NCR 2337-2338 as follows:

2

3 15A NCAC 02D .0410 PM2.5 PARTICULATE MATTER

4 (a) The national primary ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 particulate matter are:

5 (1) 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3), annual arithmetic mean concentration; and

6 (2) 35 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3), 24-hour average concentration.

PM2.5 are 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) annual arithmetic mean concentration and 35 μg/m3 7 24-hour 

8 average Concentration measured in the ambient air as PM2.5 (particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or 

9 equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers) by either:

10 (1) A reference method based on appendix L to 40 C.F.R. Part 50 and designated in accordance with 

11 40 C.F.R. Part 53; or

12 (2) An equivalent method designated in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Part 53.

13 These standards are attained when the annual arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to 15.0 ug/m3 and 

14 when the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration is less than or equal to 35 ug/m3, as determined according to 

15 Appendix N of 40 CFR Part 50.

16 (b) The primary annual PM2.5 standard is met when the annual arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in 

accordance with appendix N of 40 C.F.R. Part 50, is less than or equal to 12.0 μg/m317 .

18 (b) For the purpose of determining attainment of the standards in Paragraph (a) of this Rule, particulate matter shall 

19 be measured in the ambient air as PM2.5 (particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 

20 micrometers) by either:

21 (1) a reference method based on Appendix L of 40 CFR Part 50 and designed according to 40 CFR 

22 Part 53; or

23 (2) an equivalent method designed according to 40 CFR Part 53.

(c) The primary 24-hour PM2.5 standard is met when the 98th24 percentile 24-hour concentration, as determined in 

accordance with appendix N of 40 C.F.R. Part 50, is less than or equal to 35 μg/m325 .

26

27 History Note: Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(3);

28 Eff. April 1, 1999;

29 Amended Eff. September 1, 2015; January 1, 2010.

30
§ 526.507 Provision of certain legal services. ( a ) The provision of the following legal services to or on behalf of persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 526.201 is authorized, provided that any receipt of payment of professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses must be authorized pursuant to § 526.508, which authorizes certain payments for legal services from funds originating outside the United States; via specific license; or otherwise pursuant to this part: ( 1 ) Provision of legal advice and counseling on the requirements of and compliance with the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States, provided that such advice and counseling are not provided to facilitate transactions in violation of this part;
( 2 ) Representation of persons named as defendants in or otherwise made parties to legal, arbitration, or administrative proceedings before any U.S. Federal, state, or local court or agency;
( 3 ) Initiation and conduct of legal, arbitration, or administrative proceedings before any U.S. Federal, state, or local court or agency;
( 4 ) Representation of persons before any U.S. Federal, state, or local court or agency with respect to the imposition, administration, or enforcement of U.S. sanctions against such persons; and
( 5 ) Provision of legal services in any other context in which prevailing U.S. law requires access to legal counsel at public expense.
( b ) The provision of any other legal services to or on behalf of persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 526.201, not otherwise authorized in this part, requires the issuance of a specific license.
( c ) U.S. persons do not need to obtain specific authorization to provide related services, such as making filings and providing other administrative services, that are ordinarily incident to the provision of services authorized by paragraph (a) of this section. Additionally, U.S. persons who provide services authorized by paragraph (a) of this section do not need to obtain specific authorization to contract for related services that are ordinarily incident to the provision of those legal services, such as those provided by private investigators or expert witnesses, or to pay for such services. *See* § 526.404.
( d ) Entry into a settlement agreement or the enforcement of any lien, judgment, arbitral award, decree, or other order through execution, garnishment, or other judicial process purporting to transfer or otherwise alter or affect property or interests in property blocked pursuant to § 526.201 is prohibited unless licensed pursuant to this part.
Note 1 to § 526.507 .
Pursuant to part 501, subpart E, of this chapter, U.S. persons seeking administrative reconsideration or judicial review of their designation or the blocking of their property and interests in property may apply for a specific license from OFAC to authorize the release of certain blocked funds for the payment of professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses for the provision of such legal services where alternative funding sources are not available.
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

116) IV-C-82 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:57AM Sheet 116 of 232 
, P.2. 

0-87-.Z-Z. . 

•«--•. .. . ty-c-fi - | 

^ • ^ V s 

I

1

 JJJL "i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY | 

\ \Xl7Z ? WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

t 

Honorable John T. Myers 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Myers: 

Thank you for passing along the comments from your 

constituent, Mr. Harold A.Newport, concerning EPA's proposal to 

require onboard refueling emission controls. Be assured that 

these comments will be considered as we prepare our final rule. 

We will also be placing them in the public docket for the 

rulemaking (Docket No. A-87-11). 

Thank you again for your concern in this matter. 

Sincerely yours, 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

cc: Docket A-87-11 

Prepared by: Form Letter:sal:2/19/88:AL880722: — Ann Arbor, MI 

KXXXXXKXPMX2XH2XXXB 

bcc: Region 05 

Congressional Liaison/Quinn 

Docket A-87-11 c/o Jackie McManus
§ 28.405 Housing. ( a ) *Generally.* A recipient shall not, on the basis of sex, apply different rules or regulations, impose different fees or requirements, or offer different services or benefits related to housing, except as provided in this section (including housing provided only to married students).
( b ) *Housing provided by recipient.* ( 1 ) A recipient may provide separate housing on the basis of sex.
( 2 ) Housing provided by a recipient to students of one sex, when compared to that provided to students of the other sex, shall be as a whole: ( i ) Proportionate in quantity to the number of students of that sex applying for such housing; and
( ii ) Comparable in quality and cost to the student.
( c ) *Other housing.* ( 1 ) A recipient shall not, on the basis of sex, administer different policies or practices concerning occupancy by its students of housing other than that provided by such recipient.
( 2 ) ( i ) A recipient which, through solicitation, listing, approval of housing, or otherwise, assists any agency, organization, or person in making housing available to any of its students, shall take such reasonable action as may be necessary to assure itself that such housing as is provided to students of one sex, when compared to that provided to students of the other sex, is as a whole: ( A ) Proportionate in quantity; and
( B ) Comparable in quality and cost to the student.
( ii ) A recipient may render such assistance to any agency, organization, or person that provides all or part of such housing to students of only one sex.
§ 31.218 Enforcement. ( a ) Compliance with these rules concerning conflicts of interest is of the utmost importance. In the event a retained entity or any individual or entity providing information pursuant to 31 U.S.C. part 31 violates any of these rules, Treasury may impose or pursue one or more of the following sanctions: ( 1 ) Rejection of work tainted by an organizational conflict of interest or a personal conflict of interest and denial of payment for that work.
( 2 ) Termination of the arrangement for default.
( 3 ) Debarment of the retained entity for Federal government contracting and/or disqualification of the retained entity from future financial agency agreements.
( 4 ) Imposition of any other remedy available under the terms of the arrangement or at law.
( 5 ) In the event of violation of a criminal statute, referral to the Department of Justice for prosecution of the retained entity and/or its officers or employees. In such cases, the Department of Justice may make direct and derivative use of any statements and information provided by any entity, its representatives and employees or any individual, to the extent permitted by law.
( b ) To the extent Treasury has discretion in selecting or imposing a remedy, it will give significant consideration to a retained entity's prompt disclosure of any violation of these rules.
40096.

#### BOATRIGHT v. SOSEBEE.

Decided June 14, 1963.

*20
      *Ronald L. Adams,*for plaintiff in error.

*Thomas, Howard •& Moran, Ernest A. Moran,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

1. The bill of exceptions assigns error on the following order of the trial court, entered February 1, 1963: “It appearing to the court that the amendment to defendant’s answer filed on the 25th day of May, 1962, was allowed in open court on the 30th day of May, 1962, and it further appearing that the order allowing said amendment was not entered thereon, It is ordered, nunc pro tunc, that the allowance of said amendment on the 30th day of May, 1962, appear of record in terms of law, and an order is made accordingly.” It was within the authority and discretion of the trial court to enter said nunc pro tunc order under the provisions of *Code*§§ 24-104 (6) and 81-1201; and this assignment of error is without merit.

2. The special grounds of the amended motion for new trial assign error on three excerpts from the charge of the court which embodied principles of law relating, respectively, to the doctrines of accident, sudden emergency and comparative negligence, it *21being the sole contention in each of said grounds that the charges complained of were unauthorized by the pleadings and the evidence. These grounds are without merit.

The issue of accident was raised by the defendant’s answer and that of sudden emergency by the pleadings of both parties; and under the evidence the jury was authorized to find that the plaintiff was confronted with a sudden emergency when the driver of a parked automobile backed his vehicle into the plaintiff’s lane of traffic and that the defendant’s wife was under the compulsion of emergency, not caused by negligence on her part, when the plaintiff, without giving warning, suddenly stopped his automobile in front of her; and that as to the plaintiff and defendant in this case, the cause of the occurrence was an accident, that is, “a happening which, although not wholly free from negligence by some person, was not proximately caused by a failure of either of the parties to a case to exercise ordinary care in the situation.” *Baggett v. Jackson,*79 Ga. App. 460 (1, 2) (54 SE2d 146); *Pickering v. Wagnon,*91 Ga. App. 610 (3, 4) (86 SE2d 621); *Whitfield v. Wheeler,*76 Ga. App. 857 (47 SE2d 658),

The defendant in his answer further alleged that the plaintiff was negligent in suddenly stopping his automobile without giving-signal or warning and that the negligence of the plaintiff was greater than the negligence of the defendant, if any; and as in the *Jackson*case, supra, (hn. 3), the evidence was also subject to this construction by the jury, and authorized the charge on comparative negligence.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict rendered and the general grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 162 (Monday, August 24, 2009)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 42573]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20431]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 42573]]

                Presidential Determination No. 2009-24 of August 13, 
                2009

                
Continuation of U.S. Drug Interdiction Assistance 
                to the Government of Colombia

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State [and] the 
                Secretary of Defense

                Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 1012 
                of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
                Year 1995, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2291-4), I hereby 
                certify, with respect to Colombia, that (1) 
                interdiction of aircraft reasonably suspected to be 
                primarily engaged in illicit drug trafficking in that 
                country's airspace is necessary, because of the 
                extraordinary threat posed by illicit drug trafficking 
                to the national security of that country; and (2) that 
                country has appropriate procedures in place to protect 
                against innocent loss of life in the air and on the 
                ground in connection with such interdiction, which 
                shall at a minimum include effective means to identify 
                and warn an aircraft before the use of force is 
                directed against the aircraft.

                The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to 
                publish this determination in the Federal Register and 
                to notify the Congress of this determination.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

[FR Doc. E9-20431
Filed 8-21-09; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 29, 2011

d0321 

# Order

March 29, 2011

141974

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141974 COA: 296241 Kent CC: 90-052673-FC RICHARD ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 22, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0030]

# AGENCY:

 Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

 Notice.

# SUMMARY:

 The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Investigational New Drug Regulations” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of Information Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,                         *Elizabeth.Berbakos@fda.hhs.gov,*                         301-796-3792.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of May 8, 2009 (74 FR 21690), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0014. The approval expires on August 31, 2011. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at                     *http://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain*.                

Dated: August 13, 2009.

Jeffrey Shuren,

Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.

[FR Doc. E9-19972 Filed 8-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
#### § 544.510 Official business of the United States Government.

All transactions prohibited by this part that are for the conduct of the official business of the United States Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof are authorized.

[87 FR 78473, Dec. 21, 2022]
November 3 2009
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 162 (Monday, August 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42685-42686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20324]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-923-1310-FI; WYW144810]

Wyoming: Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and 
Gas Lease

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas 
lease.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(2), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a 
petition for reinstatement from

[[Page 42686]]

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Lance Oil & Gas Company for 
noncompetitive oil and gas lease WYW144810 for land in Johnson County, 
Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the 
rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Carmen E. 
Lovett, Land Law Examiner, at (307) 775-6160.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessees have agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction 
thereof, per year and 18\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessees have 
paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the 
Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessees 
have met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out 
in sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 
U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to 
reinstate lease WYW144810 effective April 1, 2009, under the original 
terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty 
rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting the 
lands.

Carmen E. Lovett,
Land Law Examiner.
[FR Doc. E9-20324 Filed 8-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
```
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-1615EA

_____________

Lisa R. Childers, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern 

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

Wal-Mart, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

_____________

 Submitted: September 5, 1997

Filed: September 11, 1997

_____________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Lisa R. Childers appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to

Childers's employer in Childers's employment discrimination lawsuit. Having carefully

considered the record, and assuming Childers established the elements of a prima facie

case, we agree with the district court that there is no substantial evidence in the record

tending to show that Wal-Mart's articulated reasons for Childers's demotion were a

pretext for sex discrimination. We thus conclude the district court correctly granted

summary judgment, and we affirm without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2734

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 50-percent

limitation on business meals and entertainment.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 6, 1995

Mr. ZIMMER 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 repeal

the 50-percent limitation on business meals and

entertainment.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF 50-PERCENT LIMITATION ON BUSI4 NESS MEALS AND ENTERTAINMENT.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 274 of the Internal Reve6 nue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subsection (n)

7 (relating to only 50 percent of meal and entertainment

8 expenses allowed as deduction) and by redesignating sub9 section (o) as subsection (n).
2

•HR 2734 IH

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

2 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after

3 December 31, 1995.

Æ