alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### 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.

#### § 1.552 Scope of reexamination in *ex parte* reexamination proceedings.

(a) Claims in an *ex parte* reexamination proceeding will be examined on the basis of patents or printed publications and, with respect to subject matter added or deleted in the reexamination proceeding, on the basis of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112.

(b) Claims in an *ex parte* reexamination proceeding will not be permitted to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.

(c) Issues other than those indicated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section will not be resolved in a reexamination proceeding. If such issues are raised by the patent owner or third party requester during a reexamination proceeding, the existence of such issues will be noted by the examiner in the next Office action, in which case the patent owner may consider the advisability of filing a reissue application to have such issues considered and resolved.

(d) Any statement of the patent owner and any accompanying information submitted pursuant to § 1.501(a)(2) which is of record in the patent being reexamined (which includes any reexamination files for the patent) may be used after a reexamination proceeding has been ordered to determine the proper meaning of a patent claim when applying patents or printed publications.

[65 FR 76776, Dec. 7, 2000, as amended at 77 FR 46627, Aug. 6, 2012]

###### 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.
#### Sarah Louise Cromwell et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Arthur J. Foster et al., Defendants.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

April, 1899.)

Foreclosure — Demand of subsequent mortgagee against co-defendants.

Although,. in an action of foreclosure, a subsequent mortgagee demands by his answer that his mortgage be next payable from the surplus and serves his answer upon all the defendants who have appeared and they fail to take issue upon it, he can obtain no relief until a referee has been appointed, a sale had and surplus proceedings taken, as there may be lienors, in priority to the answering defendant, who have failed to appear and, if there are any, they are entitled, under section 521 of the Code of Civil' Procedure, to be served with the answer. •

Motion for appointment of a referee in a foreclosure action.

Bowers & Sands, for motion.

Samuel Strasbourger, opposed.

Giegerich, J.

In an áction for foreclosure, a subsequent mortgagee sets up his mortgage, hy answer, and demands that it be pay*122able next from the .surplus. Service of this answer was. made upon all defendants who appeared in the action, and they have failed to take issue. It may be that lienors in priority to the answering.defendant have failed to appear, yet this would not bar their right to priority in the surplus after satisfaction of. plaintiff’s lien, and, accordingly, the answering defendant has not shown himself to be entitled to the direction which he asks. See Code' Civ. Pro. § 521. His remedy is against the surplus. The motion of the plaintiff is, therefore, granted, and the application of the defendant Strasbourger denied, with $10 costs.

Motion granted and application denied, with $10 costs.
# WUniSea

July 16, 2008 Kathleen Collins U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Suite 900, Mail Stop OWW-130 Seattle, WA 98101 

## JUL 

## 2 I 2W8

RE: EPA RequestforAdditionalInformationforRe-Issuance ofUniSea, Inc. Dutch HarborAlaska ComplexEPA Permit#AK-002865-7 DearMs. Collins, This letter is a follow up to your request for additional data, dated October 31, 2007. As indicated in our initial submittal ofrequested data, discharges to Outfall 004 would not commence until Pollock B season. The season commencedJune II, 2008 and we started barging processing wastewater to Outfall 004 on June 12,2008. As ofJuly 12,2008, UniSea has completed 89 barging trips to Outfall 004. The average temperature ofthe process wastewater being discharged is 26.5°C, with minimum and maximum values of 15°C & 42°C, respectively. This submittal completes your request for additional data. Should you have any questions regardingthe information attached, please don'thesitate to contact me at 425.861.5310. Sincerely, UniSea, Inc.

Joe Frazier Director ofQuality Assurance and Environmental Programs Cc: Michael J. Lidgard

- EPA Region 10 Terry Shaff, Eric Graham, Amelia Adkins

- UniSea, Inc.

UniSea Inc. 15400 Northeast 90th Street, P.O. Box 97019, Redmond. WA 98073-9719 (425)-881-8181 FAX (425)-882-1660
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6222

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL JOSEPH GRASSO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00092-DCN-2; 2:05-cv-01115-DCN) Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 8, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Joseph Grasso, Appellant Pro Se. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Joseph Grasso seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Grasso has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. SeeUnited States v. Morris , 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005) is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review). 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
[Cite as State v. Cole, 124 Ohio St.3d 98, 2009-Ohio-6411.] 

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. COLE, APPELLEE. 

[Cite as State v. Cole, 124 Ohio St.3d 98, 2009-Ohio-6411.] 

Certified question answered by State v. Cargile — Cause remanded to the court of 

appeals for consideration of State v. Cargile. 

(Nos. 2009-0030 and 2009-0315 — Submitted November 18, 2009 — Decided 

December 10, 2009.) 

APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 

No. 91305, 2008-Ohio-6647. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} The certified question in case No. 2009-0315 is answered by our 

opinion in State v. Cargile, 123 Ohio St.3d 343, 2009-Ohio-4939, 916 N.E.2d 

775. 

{¶ 2} There is no indication in the court of appeals’ opinion below 

whether the defendant was warned that bringing illegal contraband into the 

detention facility would result in additional charges or whether the defendant 

affirmatively denied possessing any such material. However, whether a warning 

by an officer and a denial of possession of contraband by the defendant are 

required prior to a conviction for illegal conveyance was not a consideration 

before this court in State v. Cargile. Accordingly, in order to give the parties the 

opportunity to consider these factors, case No. 2009-0030 is remanded to the 

court of appeals for consideration of State v. Cargile and consideration of whether 

the absence of both an officer’s warning and the defendant’s denial of possession 

of contraband, if applicable, would alter the result below.

 MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

 O’DONNELL, J., dissents and would affirm the judgment of the court of 

appeals. 

__________________ 

 William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Thorin 

Freeman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. 

 Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Andrew J. King, Assistant 

Public Defender, for appellee. 

______________________
EXHIBIT 31.1
                                                                    ------------
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Raul S. McQuivey, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sutron Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

     a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
     information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
     subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
     particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
     prepared;

     b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures as of the end of the period (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c. presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
     evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

     a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
     operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
     likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial information; and

     b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
     internal control over financial reporting.

6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 /s/ Raul S. McQuivey
-------------------------------------
Raul S. McQuivey
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Date: August 13, 2007
#### § 81.22 General guidelines for use of NIOSH-IREP.

DOL will use procedures specified in the NIOSH-IREP Operating Guide to calculate probability of causation estimates under EEOICPA. The guide provides current, step-by-step instructions for the operation of IREP. The procedures include entering personal, diagnostic, and exposure data; setting/confirming appropriate values for variables used in calculations; conducting the calculation; and, obtaining, evaluating, and reporting results.
Editorial Note on Part 84
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 84.70 Self-contained breathing apparatus; description. ( a ) Self-contained breathing apparatus, including all completely assembled, portable, self-contained devices designed for use as respiratory protection during entry into and escape from or escape only from hazardous atmospheres, are described as follows: ( 1 ) *Closed-circuit apparatus.* An apparatus of the type in which the exhalation is rebreathed by the wearer after the carbon dioxide has been effectively removed and a suitable oxygen concentration restored from sources composed of: ( i ) Compressed oxygen; or
( ii ) Chemical oxygen; or
( iii ) Liquid-oxygen.
( 2 ) Open-circuit apparatus. An apparatus of the following types from which exhalation is vented to the atmosphere and not rebreathed: ( i ) *Demand-type apparatus.* An apparatus in which the pressure inside the facepiece in relation to the immediate environment is positive during exhalation and negative during inhalation; or
( ii ) *Pressure-demand-type apparatus.* An apparatus in which the pressure inside the facepiece in relation to the immediate environment is positive during both inhalation and exhalation.
( b ) The following respirators may be classified as designed and approved for use during emergency entry into a hazardous atmosphere: ( 1 ) A combination respirator which includes a self-contained breathing apparatus; and
( 2 ) A Type “C” or Type “CE” supplied air respirator, where— ( i ) The self-contained breathing apparatus is classified for 3-, 5-, or 10-minute service time and the air line supply is used during entry; or
( ii ) The self-contained breathing apparatus is classified for 15 minutes or longer service time and not more than 20 percent of the rated capacity of the air supply is used during entry.
( c ) Self-contained breathing apparatus classified for less than 1 hour service time will not be approved for use during underground mine rescue and recovery operations except as auxiliary equipment.
( d ) Self-contained breathing apparatus classified for less than 30 minutes' service time will not be approved for use as auxiliary equipment during underground mine rescue and recovery operations.
[60 FR 30355, June 8, 1995, as amended at 77 FR 14193, Mar. 8, 2012; 84 FR 16412, Apr. 19, 2019]
41098.

#### STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. HODGES.

Per Curiam.

The Supreme Court of Georgia upon writ of certiorari reversed this court’s judgment rendered in this case. See *State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hodges,*111 Ga. App. 317 (141 SE2d 586) and 221 Ga. 355 (144 SE2d 723). The judgment of this court therefore is vacated and the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this court.

*Judgment of the trial court overruling the defendant’s demurrer is reversed.*

*Bell, P. J., Frankum and Hall, JJ., concur.*

*608Decided November 5, 1965.

*Fulcher, Fulcher, Hagler •& Harper, E. D. Fulcher, A. Montague Miller, G. C. Dekle, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Thomas M. Odom,*contra.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – October 25, 2022

# 									Public Schedule – October 25, 2022							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

October 24, 2022

*****THE DAILY PUBLIC SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE*****

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

**10:00 a.m.** Secretary Blinken meets with UN Under Secretary-General Martin Griffiths at the Department of State.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**1:00 p.m.** Secretary Blinken meets with Israeli President Isaac Herzog in Washington, D.C.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)**

**5:30 p.m.** Secretary Blinken hosts a reception for D-10 Strategy Forum Policy Planning Directors and Ambassadors at the Department of State.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**DEPUTY SECRETARY WENDY R. SHERMAN**

Deputy Secretary Sherman is on travel to Japan and Washington from October 24-27, 2022.

**DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES BRIAN P. MCKEON**

Deputy Secretary McKeon attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

**UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS VICTORIA J. NULAND**

Under Secretary Nuland attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

**UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CIVILIAN SECURITY, DEMOCRACY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS UZRA ZEYA**

Under Secretary Zeya has no public appointments.

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS KAREN DONFRIED**

**9:00 a.m.** Assistant Secretary Donfried delivers opening remarks at the U.S.-Albania Strategic Dialogue at the Department of State.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**2:30 p.m.** Assistant Secretary Donfried meets with Westinghouse CEO Patrick Fragman at the Department of State.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS MONICA P. MEDINA**

Assistant Secretary Medina is on travel to Australia from October 23-26, 2022.

**BRIEFING SCHEDULE**

**2:00 p.m.**Department Press Briefing with Spokesperson Ned Price.**(OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)***The Department Press Briefing will be livestreamed on**www.state.gov**and**www.youtube.com/statedept**.*

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
###### 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.

#### § 2.191 Action of the Office based on the written record.

All business with the Office must be transacted in writing. The action of the Office will be based exclusively on the written record. No consideration will be given to any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding when there is disagreement or doubt.

[84 FR 37096, July 31, 2019]

###### 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.
Order filed November 14, 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00912

- CV

____________ DERRICK FRASER , Appellant

V.

DEUTCHE BANK NATIONA L TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDE RS OF NEW CENTURY HO ME EQUITY LOAN T RUST, SERIES 2005

- B, ASSET BACKED PASS

THROUGH CERTIFICATES , Appellee s

On Appeal from County Civil C our t at Law No

. 3

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1037386



### ORDER

On October 29, 2013 , appellant filed a timely motion in this court challengi ng the trial court’s October 22, 2013 ruling sustaining a contest to his affidavit of indigence. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(j)(1), (2). W hen a motion to review the trial court’s ruling on indigence is filed, the trial court clerk and the court reporter must prepare, certify, and file the record of the hearing on thecontest to the claim of indigence within three days after the motion is filed. See

Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(j)(3). No record has been filed. 1

Rule 20.1provides that if the appellate court does not deny a motion within 10 days after the motion is filed, this motion is granted by operation of law. Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(j)(4). This new rule places a heavy burden on the trial court clerk and the court reporter to act expeditiously in preparing, certifyin g, and filing the hearing record. If the court reporter do es not file the hearing record within 10 days after the filing of the motion, as in this case, this court has no ability to review the merits of the motion, and the motion is granted by operation of law regardless of whether the motion has merit. Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(j)(4).
More than 10 days have passed since the motion was filed, and appellant’s motion was granted by operation of law. Accordingly, appellant may proceed on appeal without the advanc e payment of costs.

Therefore, we ORDER the official court reporter, Laura Cutherell , to prepare, certify, and file the appellate record without the advance payment of costs.
See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(k). The record will be due in this court 60 days from the
date of this order.

PER CURIAM

1 On October 24, 2013, the clerk’s record was filed in this court.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00223-CR

IN RE AUGUSTINE CANTU JIMENEZ

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Augustine Cantu Jimenez’s petition for writ of mandamus was filed on July 5, 

2016. In his petition, Jimenez complained about the trial court’s failure to rule on a 

motion, specifically “Defendant’s Motion to View State’s Exhibits One, Two and Three.” 

Since the filing of the petition, the trial court has denied Jimenez’s motion.

Accordingly, Jimenez’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice
In re Jimenez Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Petition dismissed as moot

Opinion delivered and filed August 10, 2016

Do not publish 

[OT06]