alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been

appealed to the Supreme Court:

1

. Tara Ann Baez

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0073

- 23

- 3

Opinion rendered by Judge Fulton on

November 14, 2023

2. Qualik Nashawn Davis

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0903

- 22

- 2

Opinion rendered by Chief Judge Decker on

November 21, 2023

3

. Graydon Manor, LLC

v. Board of Supervisors of Loudo u n County, Virginia

Record No. 1012

- 22

- 4

Opinion rendered by Judge Ortiz on

November 21, 2023

4

. Patrick Austin Carolino

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 1270

- 21

- 1

En banc opinion rendered by Judge Friedman on

November 28, 2023

5

. Donald Calway

v. City of Chesapeake

Record No. 1692

- 22

- 1

Opinion rendered by Judge Ortiz on

November 28, 2023

6. Mary Pat Martin

v. Ryan S. LaFountain, Commissioner of revenue for the City of Roanoke

Record No. 0971

- 22

- 3

Opinion rendered by Judge Causey on

December 12, 20237

. Arun Rashid Turay

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0868

- 21

- 3

En banc o pinion rendered by Judge Lorish on

December 19 , 2023

8

. Michael Brown

v. Timothy L. Kirkpatrick

Record No. 1100

- 22

- 1

En banc opinion rendered by Judge Huff on

December 19, 2023The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been

disposed of by the Supreme Court:

1. Willliam O. Flannagan, Jr.

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0923

- 21

- 2

Opinion rendered by Judge AtLee

o n August 16, 2022

Refused (230484)

2

. Margaret Williams

v. Pamela Legere, et al.

Record No. 1225

- 22

- 1

Opinion rendered by Judge White

on May 2, 2023

Refused ( 230448 )

3. Mamdoh Abouemara

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0284

- 22

- 2

Opinion rendered by Judge Raphael

on June 6, 2023

Refused (230542)

4

. Richard Alan Swezey

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0490

- 22

- 3

Opinion rendered by Judge Raphael

on June 13, 2023

Refused ( 23 0474 )
§ 67.16 Evaluation and disposition of application. ( a ) *Evaluation.* After appropriate peer review in accordance with § 67.15, the Administrator will evaluate applications recommended for further consideration, taking into account, among other factors: ( 1 ) The degree to which the purposes of Title IX of the PHS Act and section 1142 of the Social Security Act, as applicable, are being addressed;
( 2 ) Recommendations made by reviewers pursuant to § 67.15;
( 3 ) Any recommendations made by the National Advisory Council for Health Care Policy, Research, and Evaluation, as applicable;
( 4 ) The appropriateness of the budget;
( 5 ) The extent to which the research proposal and the fiscal plan provide assurance that effective use will be made of grant funds;
( 6 ) The demonstrated business management capability of the applicant;
( 7 ) The demonstrated competence and skill of the staff, especially the senior personnel, in light of the scope of the project;
( 8 ) The probable usefulness of the results of the project for dealing with national health care issues, policies, and programs; and
( 9 ) The degree to which AHCPR-announced priorities or purposes are being addressed.
( b ) *Disposition.* On the basis of the evaluation of the application as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, the Administrator shall: give consideration for funding, defer for a later decision, pending receipt of additional information, or give no further consideration for funding, to any application for a grant under this subpart; except that the Administrator may not fund an application which has not been recommended for further consideration as a result of peer review in accordance with § 67.15. A recommendation against further consideration shall not preclude reconsideration, if the application is revised, responding to issues and questions raised during the review, and resubmitted for peer review at a later date.
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WINDY PAYNE, individually and as

guardian on behalf of; D.P., a minor

child,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

PENINSULA SCHOOL DISTRICT, a

municipal corporation; ARTONDALE

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, a municipal

corporation; JODI COY, in her

individual and official capacity; JAMES

COOLICAN, in his individual and

official capacity; JANE DOES 1-10;

JOHN DOES 1-10,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 07-35115

D.C. No. CV-05-05780-RBL

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that

this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel

opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

FILED

SEP 07 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Q3 2003 Exhibit 10.30





                                           Exhibit 10.30



[WarehouseBank, a Unit of GMAC Bank
Letterhead]


September 23, 2003


E-Loan

   5875 Arnold Road

   Dublin, CA  94569


Re:Sale of Credit Agreement


Ladies and Gentlemen:


Reference is hereby made to the Warehouse Credit Agreement which we have
entered into with you on November 1, 2001 (the "Credit
Agreement").


We wish to notify you that we desire to exercise our rights under Section
11.03 of the Credit Agreement and sell to GMAC Mortgage Corporation, a
Pennsylvania corporation ("GMACM") all of our rights and obligations
under the Credit Agreement.  Pursuant to such sale, GMACM shall be entitled to
all of the rights and benefits of, and shall be solely responsible for the
performance of the obligations and liabilities of, "Lender"
thereunder.


So that we may maintain a record or your receipt of this letter for our
files, kindly execute the enclosed copy of this letter where indicated below and
return it to the undersigned.


Sincerely,


/s/

John Doulong

Sr. Vice President


 

The foregoing is accepted and agreed to this 24th day of
September, 2003.


E-LOAN, INC.


By:  /s/ Joseph Kennedy

President
### Monday Monday' ' s extrapolation call s extrapolation call Frank Behan Frank Behan to: David Ogulei, Charles Hall, Gary Gross,

Michael Galbraith, Genevieve Damico 03/15/2012 02:58 PM History: This message has been replied to. FYI - with respect to what EPA has stated on metals extrapolation in the past, I believe these are the substantive discussions on the topic (that our office has released): May 2, 1997 (proposed rule): 62 FR at 24238 Sept 30, 1999 (final rule): 64 FR at 52946-47 July 3, 2001 (direct final rule): 66 FR at 35097-98 [Note: no adverse comments were received on this amendment so it became effective on Oct 16, 2001] Some of these notices reference a background document that supported the May 1997 notice. This document is attached below.

TSD Vol 3 (Extrapolation) - May 1997 NODA.pdf If you are aware of other relevant notices/documents on the issue, can you forward to the group prior to Monday's call. Thanks Frank 703-308-8476 

### Call to Discuss Questions on the HazWaste Combustor MACT

Mon 03 / 19 / 2012 11:00 AM - 12:30 PM Attendance is for Frank Behan Chair: David Ogulei

David Ogulei /

/ R 5 / USEPA / US Rooms: R1816/R5 Metcalfe - 18th Floor@EPA This entry has an alarm. The alarm will go off before the entry starts.

Required: Charles Hall/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Frank Behan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Gary

Gross/R3/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Galbraith/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Optional: Genevieve Damico/R5/USEPA/US@EPA Time zones: This entry was created in a different time zone. The time in that time zone is: Mon

03/19/2012 10:00 AM CDT 11:30 AM CDT
§ 488.209 Hearing officer's findings. ( a ) Within 30 days of the close of the hearing, the hearing officer will present the findings and recommendations to the accreditation organization or State laboratory program that requested the reconsideration.
( b ) The written report of the hearing officer will include— ( 1 ) Separate numbered findings of fact; and
( 2 ) The legal conclusions of the hearing officer.
###### 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.

#### § 1.171 Application for reissue.

An application for reissue must contain the same parts required for an application for an original patent, complying with all the rules relating thereto except as otherwise provided, and in addition, must comply with the requirements of the rules relating to reissue applications.

[62 FR 53196, Oct. 10, 1997]

###### 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.
§ 17.804 Loan approval criteria. Upon consideration of the application package, loan approval will be based on the following: ( a ) Favorable financial history and status, ( 1 ) A minimum of a two-year credit history,
( 2 ) No open liens, judgments, and no unpaid collection accounts,
( 3 ) No more than two instances where payments were ever delinquent beyond 60 days,
( 4 ) Net ratio: (monthly expenses divided by monthly cash flow) that does not exceed 40%,
( 5 ) Gross ratio: (total indebtedness divided by gross annual cash flow) that does not exceed 35%,
( 6 ) At least two favorable credit references,
( b ) Demonstrated ability to successfully address the needs of substance abusers as determined by a minimum of one year of successful experience in providing services, such as, provision of housing, vocational training, structured job seeking assistance, organized relapse prevention services, or similar activity. Such experience would involve at least twenty-five substance abusers, and would be experience which could be verified by VA inquiries of government or community groups with whom the applicant has worked in providing these services.
( c ) An acceptable plan for operating a residence designed to meet the conditions of a loan under this program, which will include: ( 1 ) Measures to ensure that residents are eligible for residency, *i.e.*, are veterans, are in (or have recently been in) a program for the treatment of substance abuse, are financially able to pay their share of costs of maintaining the residence, and agree to abide by house rules and rent/utilities payment provisions,
( 2 ) Adequate rent/utilities collections to cover cost of maintaining the residence,
( 3 ) Policies that ensure democratic self-run government, including expulsion policies, and
( 4 ) Available technical assistance to residents in the event of house management problems.
( d ) Selection of a suitable housing unit for use as a transitional residence in a neighborhood with no known illegal drug activity, and with adequate living space for number of veterans planned for residence (at least one large bedroom for every three veterans, at least one bathroom for every four veterans, adequate common space for entire household)
( e ) Agreements, signed by an official authorized to bind the recipient, which include: ( 1 ) The loan payment schedule in accordance with the requirements of Pub. L. 102-54, with the interest rate being the same as the rate the VA is charged to borrow these funds from the U.S. Department of Treasury and with a penalty of 4% of the amount due for each failure to pay an installment by the date specified in the loan agreement involved, and
( 2 ) The applicant's intent to use proceeds of loan only to cover initial startup costs associated with the residence, such as security deposit, furnishings, household supplies, and any other initial startup costs.
(Authority: Sec. 8 of Pub. L. 102-54, 105 Stat. 271, 38 U.S.C. 501)
#### § 10.1 Issuance of duplicate adjusted service certificate without bond.

If the veteran named in an adjusted service certificate issued pursuant to the provisions of section 501 of the World War Adjusted Compensation Act, without bad faith, has not received such certificate, or if prior to receipt by the veteran such certificate was destroyed wholly or in part or was so defaced as to impair its value, or, if after delivery it was partially destroyed or defaced so as to impair its value but can be identified to the satisfaction of the Secretary, a duplicate adjusted service certificate will be issued upon application and a bond of indemnity will not be required: *Provided,* That if the adjusted service certificate was destroyed in part or so defaced as to impair its value, the veteran or person entitled to payment thereon will be required to surrender to the Department of Veterans Affairs the original certificate or so much thereof as may remain.
###### 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.

#### § 1.67 Supplemental oath or declaration.

(a) The applicant may submit an inventor's oath or declaration meeting the requirements of § 1.63, § 1.64, or § 1.162 to correct any deficiencies or inaccuracies present in an earlier-filed inventor's oath or declaration. Deficiencies or inaccuracies due to the failure to meet the requirements of § 1.63(b) in an oath or declaration may be corrected with an application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76, except that any correction of inventorship must be pursuant to § 1.48.

(b) A supplemental inventor's oath or declaration under this section must be executed by the person whose inventor's oath or declaration is being withdrawn, replaced, or otherwise corrected.

(c) The Office will not require a person who has executed an oath or declaration in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 115 and § 1.63 or 1.162 for an application to provide an additional inventor's oath or declaration for the application.

(d) No new matter may be introduced into a nonprovisional application after its filing date even if an inventor's oath or declaration is filed to correct deficiencies or inaccuracies present in the earlier-filed inventor's oath or declaration.

[77 FR 48819, Aug. 14, 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.
Via Email: L ee.Brian@epamail.epa.gov

Brian J. Lee, Ph.D. New Chemicals Management Branch Chemical Control Division US Environmental Protection Agency New Chemicals Program (7405M) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 June 16, 2011 Re: Appli cation to Exempt New Microorganism [TSCA §5(h)(4)]

– Trichoderma reesei Dear Dr. Lee: Please find below proposed language for incorporation into the Trichoderma reesei (“ T. reesei ”) draft rulemaking. As an initial matter, the Enzy me Technical Associati on (“ETA”) would like to reemphasize the long, well

- documented safety record of products from T. reesei used in food and industrial applications. While ETA recognizes that there are some rather limited studies that have successfull y i nduced paracelsin pro duction where T. reesei were stressed and/or exposed to certain types of potential triggers, we are not aware of any paracelsin production under standard industrial fermentation conditions. ETA provides below draft language that we believe should addres s the Environmental Protection Agency ’s (“EPA”) concerns about paracelsin production in industrial fermentations involving conversion of cellulosic biomass to ethanol. Briefly, the proposed language will ensure that T. reesei has been inactivated as per 4 0 CFR 725.422(d) prior to use in any fermentation that would involve the use of plant material for producing ethanol and other biofuels. Under this additional limitation, there is no evidence for concern regarding the production of paracelsin. By way o f ETA’s previous submissions to the agency , and per the EPA’s letter dated May 11, 2011, standard industrial fermentations using T. reesei have a long and proven safety r ecord. We provide two versions of the draft language; however, the onl y s ubstantive difference is format for ease of use b y EPA.Brian J. Lee, Ph.D.

June 16, 2011 Page 2

Proposed Language
T. reesei will be eligible for Tiered Exemption with the following limitations: (1) T. reesei microorganisms will only be used under standard industrial fermentation conditions, followed b y i nactivation of the microorganisms as per 40 CFR 725.422(d) , (2) any f ermentation of plant material for producing ethanol and other biofuels, to which T. reesei fermentation broth is added, may onl y b e initiated after the inactivation of T. reesei as d elineated in 40 CFR 725.422(d). or, alternatively: Any fermentation of plant material for producing ethanol and other biofuels, to which T. reesei fermentation broth is added, may only be initiated after the inactivation of T. reesei as delineated in 4 0 CFR 725.422(d). We believe the above language should fully address EPA’s concerns. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you again for your ongoing support and help with this application process, it is greatl y appre ciated. Sincerel y,

Tony Pavel ETA Cc: Greg Schweer
§ 12.17 Unclaimed effects to be sold. ( a ) Personal effects of persons referred to in § 12.15 which remain unclaimed for 90 days after the death or departure of the owner shall be sold in the manner provided by § 12.8. The owner, his or her personal representative, or next of kin may reclaim any such property upon request therefor at any time prior to the sale.
( b ) Any unclaimed funds and the proceeds of any effects sold as unclaimed will be deposited to the General Post Fund subject to be reclaimed within five years after notice of sale, by or on behalf of any person or persons who, if known, would have been entitled to the property prior to the sale.
[13 FR 7131, Nov. 27, 1948, as amended at 14 FR 4726, July 28, 1949]
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50269 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RAMON ALBERTO PADILLA-GALLARDO, a.k.a. Danny Sabalas Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-95-CR-190

- - - - - - - - - - October 24, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ramon Alberto Padilla-Gallardo appeals the sentence imposed subsequent to his plea of guilty to reentry into the United States after deportation. Padilla-Gallardo first argues that the district court erred in using the statutory maximum of 18 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) because the indictment did not allege that his deportation had been subsequent to the commission of anNo. 96-50269 - 2 - aggravated felony. Title 18 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is a sentence enhancement provision rather than an independent criminal offense; thus, it need not be alleged in the indictment. United States v. Vasquez-Olvera , 999 F.2d 943, 945 (5th Cir. 1993), cert denied , 510 U.S. 1076 (1994). In his reply brief, PadillaGallardo invites the court to reconsider its decision in VasquezOlvera en banc. We decline to consider the request as it is untimely under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and does not comply with this court’s local rules. See 5th Cir. R. 35.2. Padilla-Gallardo next argues that the court erred in denying him a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. It was not clear error for the district court to determine that Padilla-Gallardo’s statements to an INS agent and other behavior were inconsistent with his acceptance of responsibility. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.3). AFFIRMED.
H. R. 2245 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

An Act 

To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Wenatchee, 

Washington, as the Elwood ‘‘Bud’’ Link Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient 

Clinic. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ELWOOD ‘‘BUD’’ LINK DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT CLINIC. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic located in Wenatchee, Washington, shall after the 

date of the enactment of this Act be known and designated as 

the ‘‘Elwood ‘Bud’ Link Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient 

Clinic’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, regulation, map, 

document, record, or other paper of the United States to the medical 

center referred to in subsection (a) shall be considered to be a 

reference to the Elwood ‘‘Bud’’ Link Department of Veterans Affairs 

Outpatient Clinic. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.