alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Spear *v.*The State.

*Assault and Battery.*

(Decided Jan. 16, 1912.

57 South. 510.)

*Assault md Battery; Extenuation; Abusive Language.*— Under section 6308, Code 1907; abusive language by the prosecutor at or near the time of the assault, but not in the presence or hearing of the accused, but communicated to him before the assault may be shown in extenuation or justification of the assault

Appeal from Walker Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. T. L. S'oweld.

Dick Spear was convicted of assault and battery, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Laoy & Lacy, for appellant.

The evidence as to the abusive language was admissible. — Sec. 6308, Code 1908; *Brook v. The State,*155 Ala. 78.

R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

The court properly declined to permit the evidence of abusive language to' go to the *jury.*— Kiser *r>. Smith,*71 Ala. 481; *Henry v. The*State, 79 Ala. 42; *McNeil v. The*State, 102 Ala. 121; *Stihr-ell v. The State,*107 Ala. 16; *53*Ragland v. The State,*125 Ala. 12; *Lovelace v. Miller,*150 Ala. 422; *Terry v. Eastland,*1 Stew. 156.

de GEAFFENRLED, J.

Section 6308 of the Code provides that, on the trial of any person for an assault and battery, or affray, he may give in evidence opprobrious words or abusive language used by the person assaulted or beaten *at*or *necur*the time of the assault or affray, and such evidence shall be good in extenuation or justification, as the jury may determine. Opprobrious words or abusive language used by the person assaulted or beaten *at*or *near*the time of the assault, not in the presence or hearing of the defendant, but communicated to the defendant before the assault, are admissible in evidence under the above provisions of the Code in extenuation or justification of the offense, as the jury may determine. Opprobrious words spoken of, or abusive language used against, a man “behind his back,” and communicated to the man so spoken of or abused, frequently have the same effect upon him as .if spoken in his *presence.*—Brooke *v. State,*155 Ala. 78, 46 South. 491.

In the present case the defendant was indicted for assaulting and beating Cam Smith, and offered to prove that just a few minutes before the difficulty said Oam Smith made use of opprobrious words or abusive language concerning the defendant, not in the presence or hearing of the defendant, but that said opprobrious words or abusive language were communicated to the defendant just a few minutes before the difficulty. The court refused to allow such proof, and in doing so committed an error for which the judgment in this case must be reversed.

Reversed and remanded.
§ 404.3 Definitions. ( a ) *Government owned invention* means an invention, whether or not covered by a patent or patent application, or discovery which is or may be patentable or otherwise protectable under Title 35, the Plant Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2321 *et seq.*) or foreign patent law, owned in whole or in part by the United States Government.
( b ) *Federal agency* means an executive department, military department, Government corporation, or independent establishment, except the Tennessee Valley Authority, which has custody of a federally owned invention.
( c ) *Small business firm* means a small business concern as defined in section 2 of Pub. L. 85-536 (15 U.S.C. 632) and implementing regulations of the Administrator of the Small Business Administration.
( d ) *Practical application* means to manufacture in the case of a composition or product, to practice in the case of a process or method, or to operate in the case of a machine or system; and, in each case, under such conditions as to establish that the invention is being utilized and that its benefits are to the extent permitted by law or Government regulations available to the public on reasonable terms.
( e ) *United States* means the United States of America, its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
[50 FR 9802, Mar. 12, 1985, as amended at 71 FR 11512, Mar. 8, 2006]
#### Millard WHITFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. AF-36.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 16, 1982.

Carl S. McGinnes, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Gregory C. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appealed order denying appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence is reversed and remanded to the lower court with directions to grant appellant’s motion and resentenee appellant as a youthful offender under Section 958.05, Florida Statr utes (1979) as mandated by the Florida Supreme Court in *State v. Goodson,*403 So.2d 1337 (Fla.1981).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BOOTH, SHIVERS and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A0690. RECO COUSINS v. TERRY LANGLEY et al.

Reco Cousins filed this pro se civil action against Terry Langley and other

defendants, asserting that he was mistreated while being held in the Carroll County

Jail. Cousins was incarcerated at Riverbend Correctional Facility when he filed the

action. The trial court dismissed the action, and Cousins filed this direct appeal.

1 We

lack jurisdiction.

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, an appeal in a civil action

filed by a prisoner must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary review.

See OCGA § 42-12-8, cross-referencing OCGA § 5-6-35;Brock v. Hardman, 303 Ga.

729, 731 (2) (814 SE2d 736) (2018). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals

procedure isjurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257,

257 (471 SE2d 60) (1996). Because Cousins wasincarcerated when he filed this civil

action, his failure to comply with the discretionary appeals procedure deprives us of 

1

 In the notice of appeal, Cousins gave Riverbend as his address.

December 30, 2021
jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Brock, 303 Ga.

at 731 (2).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

12/30/2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-03-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,345
<SECURITIES>                                        64
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,081
<ALLOWANCES>                                       579
<INVENTORY>                                     13,649
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,625
<PP&E>                                          15,591
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,806
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,075
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,658
<BONDS>                                          5,735
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,769
<OTHER-SE>                                         791
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,075
<SALES>                                         30,080
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,080
<CGS>                                           22,369
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (311)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 233
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,944
<INCOME-TAX>                                       758
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,163
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,163
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42
        

</TABLE>
null

419.04108
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 contemplated” 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 requirements 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
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2239 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 24, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility 

for vocational rehabilitation benefits administered by the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

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


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

HR 2239 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Early Access to Voca3 tional Rehabilitation and Employment Benefits Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR VOCATIONAL RE5 HABILITATION BENEFITS ADMINISTERED BY 

6 THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

7 Section 3102 of title 38, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

10 end; 

11 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at 

12 the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

13 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

14 paragraph: 

15 ‘‘(3) the person— 

16 ‘‘(A) at the time of the Secretary’s deter17 mination under subparagraph (B), is a member 

18 of the Armed Forces who is hospitalized or re19 ceiving outpatient medical care, services, or 

20 treatment; 

21 ‘‘(B) is determined by the Secretary to 

22 have a total disability permanent in nature in23 curred or aggravated in the line of duty in the 

24 active military, naval, or air service; and 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
3 

HR 2239 RFS

1 ‘‘(C) is likely to be discharged or released 

2 from such service for such disability.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.176 Examination of reissue.

(a) A reissue application will be examined in the same manner as a non-reissue, non-provisional application, and will be subject to all the requirements of the rules related to non-reissue applications. Applications for reissue will be acted on by the examiner in advance of other applications.

(b) Restriction between subject matter of the original patent claims and previously unclaimed subject matter may be required (restriction involving only subject matter of the original patent claims will not be required). If restriction is required, the subject matter of the original patent claims will be held to be constructively elected unless a disclaimer of all the patent claims is filed in the reissue application, which disclaimer cannot be withdrawn by applicant.

[65 FR 54676, Sept. 8, 2000]

###### 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 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.
#### §§ 201.19-201.21 [Reserved]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Minerals Security Partnership

# 									Minerals Security Partnership							

Media Note

June 14, 2022

The United States and key partner countries have announced the establishment of the Minerals Security Partnership (MSP), an ambitious new initiative to bolster critical mineral supply chains. This announcement was made in Toronto during the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada convention, the largest mining event in the world.

The goal of the MSP is to ensure that critical minerals are produced, processed, and recycled in a manner that supports the ability of countries to realize the full economic development benefit of their geological endowments. Demand for critical minerals, which are essential for clean energy and other technologies, is projected to expand significantly in the coming decades. The MSP will help catalyze investment from governments and the private sector for strategic opportunities —across the full value chain —that adhere to the highest environmental, social, and governance standards.

MSP partners – including Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Commission – are committed to building robust, responsible critical mineral supply chains to support economic prosperity and climate objectives.

For further information, please contact ENR-PD-Clearances@state.gov.

Tags

AustraliaBureau of Energy ResourcesCanadaFinlandFranceGermanyJapanOffice of the SpokespersonSwedenUnited Kingdom

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
#### § 87.2 Definitions.

As used in this regulation:

*Demonstration project grant* means an award of funds to an eligible applicant to assist in meeting the cost of conducting a demonstration, either on a pilot or full-scale basis, of the technical or economic feasibility or application of a new or improved procedure, method, technique, or approach that will further the research purposes described in § 87.4.

*Principal investigator* for a research project, or *project director* for a demonstration project, means a single individual who is responsible for the scientific and technical direction of the project.

*Research project grant* means an award of funds to an eligible applicant to assist in meeting the costs of conducting an identified research activity or program, study, or experiment that will further the research purposes described in § 87.4.

*Secretary* means the Secretary of Health and Human Services and any other officer or employee of the Department of Health and Human Services to whom the authority involved has been delegated.
§ 498.48 Notice of prehearing conference. ( a ) *Timing of notice.* The ALJ will fix a time and place for the prehearing conference and mail written notice to the parties at least 10 days before the scheduled date.
( b ) *Content of notice.* The notice will inform the parties of the purpose of the conference and specify what issues are sought to be resolved, agreed to, or excluded.
( c ) *Additional issues.* Issues other than those set forth in the notice of determination or the request for hearing may be considered at the prehearing conference if— ( 1 ) Either party gives timely notice to that effect to the ALJ and the other party; or
( 2 ) The ALJ raises the issues in the notice of prehearing conference or at the conference.
§ 600.310 Application. ( a ) *Single streamlined application.* The State must use the single streamlined application used by the State in accordance with § 435.907(b) of this chapter and 45 CFR 155.405(a) and (b).
( b ) *Opportunity to apply and assistance with application.* The terms of §§ 435.906, 435.907(g) and 435.908 of this chapter, requiring the State to provide individuals the opportunity to apply and receive assistance with an application in the Medicaid program, apply in the same manner to States in the administration of the BHP.
( c ) *Authorized representatives.* The State may choose to permit the use of an authorized representative designated by an applicant or beneficiary to assist with the individual's application, eligibility renewal and other ongoing communication with the BHP. If the State chooses this option, the State must follow the standards set forth at either 45 CFR 155.227 or 42 CFR 435.923.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.943 Requirements of responses, written comments, and briefs in *inter partes* reexamination.

(a) The form of responses, written comments, briefs, appendices, and other papers must be in accordance with the requirements of § 1.52.

(b) Responses by the patent owner and written comments by the third party requester shall not exceed 50 pages in length, excluding amendments, appendices of claims, and reference materials such as prior art references.

(c) Appellant's briefs filed by the patent owner and the third party requester shall not exceed thirty pages or 14,000 words in length, excluding appendices of claims and reference materials such as prior art references. All other briefs filed by any party shall not exceed fifteen pages in length or 7,000 words. If the page limit for any brief is exceeded, a certificate is required stating the number of words contained in the brief.

###### 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 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 188 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 188

   To provide a new effective date for the applicability of certain 
                provisions of law to Public Law 105-331.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2007

       Mr. Pallone (for himself, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. 
Frelinghuysen, and Mr. Sires) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide a new effective date for the applicability of certain 
                provisions of law to Public Law 105-331.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
any other provision of law, for the purposes of Public Law 105-331, the 
end of the 2-year period specified in subparagraph (B) of section 
5134(f)(1) of title 31, United States Code, shall be July 1, 2007. This 
section shall apply on and after December 31, 2006, as if the section 
had been enacted on such date.
                                 <all>
```