alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 102.10 Appeals from initial determinations or untimely delays. ( a ) If a request for records is initially denied in whole or in part, or has not been timely determined, or if a requester receives an adverse initial determination regarding any other matter under this subpart (as described in § 102.7(b)), the requester may file a written appeal, which must be received by the Office of General Counsel within thirty calendar days of the date of the written denial or, if there has been no determination, may be submitted anytime after the due date, including the last extension under § 102.6(c), of the determination.
( b ) Appeals shall be decided by a Deputy General Counsel. Appeals should be addressed to the General Counsel, United States Patent and Trademark Office, PO Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450. Both the letter and the appeal envelope should be clearly marked “Freedom of Information Appeal”. The appeal must include a copy of the original request and the initial denial, if any, and may include a statement of the reasons why the records requested should be made available and why the initial denial, if any, was in error. No opportunity for personal appearance, oral argument or hearing on appeal is provided.
( c ) If an appeal is granted, the person making the appeal shall be immediately notified and copies of the releasable documents shall be made available promptly thereafter upon receipt of appropriate fees determined in accordance with § 102.11.
( d ) If no determination of an appeal has been sent to the requester within the twenty-working-day period specified in § 102.6(b) or the last extension thereof, the requester is deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to the request, giving rise to a right of judicial review under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(C). If the person making a request initiates a civil action against USPTO based on the provision in this paragraph, the administrative appeal process may continue.
( e ) A determination on appeal shall be in writing and, when it denies records in whole or in part, the letter to the requester shall include: ( 1 ) A brief explanation of the basis for the denial, including a list of applicable FOIA exemptions and a description of how the exemptions apply;
( 2 ) A statement that the decision is final;
( 3 ) Notification that judicial review of the denial is available in the United States district court for the district in which the requester resides or has its principal place of business, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, or the District of Columbia; and
( 4 ) The name and title or position of the official responsible for denying the appeal.
[65 FR 52917, Aug. 31, 2000, as amended at 68 FR 14338, Mar. 25, 2003]
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 2.135 Abandonment of application or mark.

After the commencement of an opposition, concurrent use, or interference proceeding, if the applicant files a written abandonment of the application or of the mark without the written consent of every adverse party to the proceeding, judgment shall be entered against the applicant. The written consent of an adverse party may be signed by the adverse party or by the adverse party's attorney or other authorized representative.

[54 FR 34900, Aug. 22, 1989]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6231
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GARY LYNN WALLACE, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-92-278, CA-96-395-1) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 19, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Thomas Franklin Loflin, III, LOFLIN & LOFLIN, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Wallace , Nos. CR-92-278; CA-96-395-1 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 10, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT AJITKUMAR PATEL and ) NILAKUMARI PATEL, ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-4695 ) WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ) ASSOCIATION, as trustee for the ) certificate holders of Structured Asset ) Mortgage Investments II Inc., Bear ) Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust ) 2007-AR1 Mortgage Pass-Through ) Certificates, 2007-AR1, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed February 22, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Keith Spoto, Judge. Eric O. Husby, Tampa, for Appellants. Sarah T. Weitz of Weitz & Schwartz, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, VILLANTI, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
41085.

#### HEISLEY v. PAYMASTER CHECKWRITER COMPANY, INC.

Decided January 12, 1965.

*William M. Redman, Jr., George F. Wheeler, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Kilpatrick, Cody, Rogers, McClatchey & Regenstein, Thomas E. Joiner,*contra.

Pannell, Judge.

There being no certification by the trial judge that the bill of exceptions is true, this court is without jurisdiction to pass upon the merits of the exceptions. *Pierce v. Haygood,*213 Ga. 459 (99 SE2d 906); *Echols v. State,*103 Ga. App. 537 (120 SE2d 350).

*Upon motion the writ of error is dismissed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
#### § 493.839 Condition: Chemistry.

The specialty of chemistry includes for the purposes of proficiency testing the subspecialties of routine chemistry, endocrinology, and toxicology.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Promoting Fair and Transparent Selection of Justices to Guatemala’s Constitutional Court

# 									Promoting Fair and Transparent Selection of Justices to Guatemala’s Constitutional Court							

Press Statement

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

January 28, 2021

We are closely following the Guatemalan Congress’ attempt to appoint an individual with serious allegations against him as constitutional court magistrate.  This includes allegations of conspiracy to obstruct justice and evidence of past engagement with Gustavo Alejos, whom the Department previously publicly designated for corrupt acts that undermined the rule of law in Guatemala.  This appointment by Guatemala’s Congress calls into question the integrity of Guatemala’s highest court, thereby weakening the rule of law and undermining a key U.S. priority.  The State Department values our partnership with President Giammattei and our longstanding ties with Guatemala, and is committed to supporting Guatemala’s fight against endemic corruption and impunity—a necessary step toward the prosperous and secure future the people of Guatemala deserve.  The fair and transparent selection of justices to the Constitutional Court is critical for Guatemala’s democratic institutions.

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsCorruptionDemocracyElectionsGuatemalaOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2008 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations that require 

air carriers to provide training for flight attendants and gate attendants 

regarding serving alcohol and dealing with disruptive passengers, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 23, 2007 

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations 

that require air carriers to provide training for flight 

attendants and gate attendants regarding serving alcohol 

and dealing with disruptive passengers, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘Airline Personnel 

5 Training Enhancement Act’’. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2008 IH

1 SEC. 2. REGULATIONS. 

2 Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 

3 of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall issue 

4 regulations under chapter 447 of title 49, United States 

5 Code, that require air carriers to provide initial and an6 nual recurring training for flight attendants and gate at7 tendants regarding serving alcohol, dealing with disruptive 

8 passengers, and recognizing intoxicated persons. The 

9 training shall include situational training on methods of 

10 handling an intoxicated person who is belligerent. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
1 

### RSS dd - ATL DFARS

From: Mansfield, Donald <Donald.Mansfield@dau.mil>

Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 05:41 PM

To: RSS dd - ATL DFARS Subject: DFARS Case 2012-D057 Signed By: donald.mansfield@dau.mil

To Whom It May Concern:

I recommend adding “when a requirements contract is co ntemplated” to the proposed DFARS 216.506(d) and making conforming changes to read as follows:

“Use the basic or the alternate of the clause at 252.216-70XX, Requirements, in lieu of the clause at FAR 52.216-21, Requirements, in solicitations and contracts when a requireme nts contract is contemplated and the acquisition is for the preparation of personal property for shipment or storage, or for the performance of intra-city or intra-area movement.”

Donald E. Mansfield

Professor of Contract Management

Defense Acquisition University
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Part 3

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 3.21 Identification of patents and patent applications.

An assignment relating to a patent must identify the patent by the patent number. An assignment relating to a national patent application must identify the national patent application by the application number (consisting of the series code and the serial number; e.g., 07/123,456). An assignment relating to an international patent application which designates the United States of America must identify the international application by the international application number; e.g., PCT/US2012/012345. An assignment relating to an international design application which designates the United States of America must identify the international design application by the international registration number or by the U.S. application number assigned to the international design application. If an assignment of a patent application filed under § 1.53(b) of this chapter is executed concurrently with, or subsequent to, the execution of the patent application, but before the patent application is filed, it must identify the patent application by the name of each inventor and the title of the invention so that there can be no mistake as to the patent application intended. If an assignment of a provisional application under § 1.53(c) of this chapter is executed before the provisional application is filed, it must identify the provisional application by the name of each inventor and the title of the invention so that there can be no mistake as to the provisional application intended.

[80 FR 17969, Apr. 2, 2015]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
#### RUSSELL MOTOR CAR COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES. HENRY FREYGANG AND ALBERT A. TBOCON, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF THE MIDLAND BRIDGE COMPANY, v. THE UNITED STATES. ALBERT & J. M. ANDERSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.

[57 C. Cls. 464, 244, 626 ; 261 U.S. 514.]

Judgments were rendered in the court below in each of the above cases for a portion of the amounts claimed. On appeals by plaintiffs the judgments were *affirmed,*and the Supreme Court decided:

The act of June 15, 1917, c. 29, 40 Stat. 182,» empowered the President, within the limits of amounts appropriated, “ to modify, suspend, cancel, or requisition any existing or future contract for the building, production, or purchase of ships or material ” and to exercise the authority' “ through such agency or agencies as he shall determine from time to time,” “ material ” being defined as including stores, supplies, and equipment for ships and everything required for or in connection with the production thereof.

*Meld: (a)*The word “material” included antiaircraft gun mounts for the Navy.

(6) The power “to modify, suspend, cancel, or requisition” any contract, etc., extends to the cancellation of the Government’s own contracts.

(c) An Executive order designating power under this clause in sweeping terms to the Secretary of the Navy should be construed broadly, and included the power to cancel Government contracts.

(d) An order of the Secretary canceling a contract need not refer to the statute.

(e) The just compensation to which a party is entitled, upon cancellation of his contract under the statute, does not include anticipated profits.

*709The maxim *nosoitur a soeiis*is used only to solve ambiguity. Verbs in an enumeration whose meaning, when they are separately applied to their common object, is plain, should be interpreted distributively.

Where the meaning of a statute may be ascertained without extrinsic . . aid, debates in Congress will not be considered.

Mr. Justice Sutherland

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 9, 1923.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.63


                               SECOND AMENDMENT TO
                     EXECUTIVE OFFICER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

      This Second Amendment to Executive Officer Employment Agreement ("Second
Amendment") is made effective as of September 15, 2003 by and between CALLAWAY
GOLF COMPANY, a Delaware corporation (the "Company") and PATRICE HUTIN
("Employee").

      A. The Company and Employee are parties to that certain Executive Officer
Employment Agreement entered into as of November 6, 2002, as amended by the
First Amendment entered into as of March 1, 2003 (as amended, the "Agreement").

      B. The Company and Employee desire to amend the Agreement pursuant to
Section 15 of the Agreement, in the manner set forth herein.

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other consideration,
the value and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and
Employee hereby agree as follows:

      1. Section 2(a) of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

            "(a) Effective September 15, 2003, Employee shall serve as President
            & Chief Operating Officer of the Company. Employee's duties shall be
            the usual and customary duties of the offices in which Employee
            serves. Employee shall report to such person as the Chief Executive
            Officer shall designate. The Board of Directors and/or the Chief
            Executive Officer of the Company may change Employee's title,
            position and/or duties at any time."

      2. Section 4(a) of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

            "(a) Effective September 15, 2003, the Company agrees to pay
            Employee a base salary at the rate of $550,000.00 per year, payable
            in equal increments in accordance with the Company's current pay
            schedule."

      3. But for the amendments contained herein, and any other written
amendments properly executed by the parties, the Agreement shall otherwise
remain unchanged.

      4. This Second Amendment is subject to the approval of the Board of
Directors of the Company or appropriate committee thereof.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Second Amendment on the
dates set forth below, to be effective as of the date first written above.

EMPLOYEE                                      COMPANY

                                              Callaway Golf Company,
                                              a Delaware corporation


/s/ PATRICE HUTIN/                        By: /s/ RONALD A. DRAPEAU/
----------------------------                  ---------------------------
Patrice Hutin                                  Ronald A. Drapeau
                                               Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                               Executive Officer

Dated:      09/23/03                           Dated:      9/23/03
        --------------------                         ---------------------------
§ 494.170 Condition: Medical records. The dialysis facility must maintain complete, accurate, and accessible records on all patients, including home patients who elect to receive dialysis supplies and equipment from a supplier that is not a provider of ESRD services and all other home dialysis patients whose care is under the supervision of the facility. ( a ) *Standard: Protection of the patient's record.* The dialysis facility must— ( 1 ) Safeguard patient records against loss, destruction, or unauthorized use; and
( 2 ) Keep confidential all information contained in the patient's record, except when release is authorized pursuant to one of the following: ( i ) The transfer of the patient to another facility.
( ii ) Certain exceptions provided for in the law.
( iii ) Provisions allowed under third party payment contracts.
( iv ) Approval by the patient.
( v ) Inspection by authorized agents of the Secretary, as required for the administration of the dialysis program.
( 3 ) Obtaining written authorization from the patient or legal representative before releasing information that is not authorized by law.
( b ) *Standard: Completion of patient records and centralization of clinical information.* ( 1 ) Current medical records and those of discharged patients must be completed promptly.
( 2 ) All clinical information pertaining to a patient must be centralized in the patient's record, including whether the patient has executed an advance directive. These records must be maintained in a manner such that each member of the interdisciplinary team has access to current information regarding the patient's condition and prescribed treatment.
( 3 ) The dialysis facility must complete, maintain, and monitor home care patients' records, including the records of patients who receive supplies and equipment from a durable medical equipment supplier.
( c ) *Standard: Record retention and preservation.* In accordance with 45 CFR § 164.530(j)(2), all patient records must be retained for 6 years from the date of the patient's discharge, transfer, or death.
( d ) *Standard: Transfer of patient record information.* When a dialysis patient is transferred, the dialysis facility releasing the patient must send all requested medical record information to the receiving facility within 1 working day of the transfer.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 34123]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14447]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7501]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Lee Ufan: Marking Infinity''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the object to be 
included in the exhibition ``Lee Ufan: Marking Infinity,'' imported 
from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of 
cultural significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan 
agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at the Solomon R. 
Guggenheim Museum, New York, NY, from on or about June 24, 2011, until 
on or about September 28, 2011, and at possible additional exhibitions 
or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have 
ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including the 
exhibit object list, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of 
the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6467). 
The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth 
Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: June 6, 2011.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-14447 Filed 6-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```