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

#### § 42.301 Definitions.

In addition to the definitions in § 42.2, the following definitions apply to proceedings under this subpart D:

(a) *Covered business method patent* means a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.

(b) *Technological invention.* In determining whether a patent is for a technological invention solely for purposes of the Transitional Program for Covered Business Methods (section 42.301(a)), the following will be considered on a case-by-case basis: whether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art; and solves a technical problem using a technical solution.

[77 FR 48753, Aug. 14, 2012]
§ 0.735-1 Agency ethics officials. ( a ) *Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO).* The Secretary will designate attorneys from the Office of General Counsel to serve as the Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO) and Alternate Designated Agency Ethics Official (ADAEO).
( b ) *Deputy ethics officials.* ( 1 ) The District Chief Counsels and attorneys on the Ethics Specialty Team are Deputy Ethics Officials. They have been delegated the authority to act for the DAEO pursuant to 5 CFR 2638.104(e).
( 2 ) Other officials may also act as Deputy Ethics officials pursuant to delegations of one or more of the DAEO's duties from the DAEO.
[58 FR 61813, Nov. 23, 1993. Redesignated at 61 FR 11309, Mar. 20, 1996; 89 FR 15451, Mar. 4, 2024]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The  schedule  contains  summary   information   extracted  from  the  financial
statements of the March 31, 1998 Form 10-Q of Integrated  Resources  High Equity
Partners,  Series 85 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       5,031,833
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  148,703
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,378,335
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  37,971,821
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,378,335
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,590,545
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  836,815
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               858,670
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                924,461
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            924,461
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   924,461
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
         

</TABLE>
----

            COUNCIL COMMON POSITION 2005/220/CFSP

of 14 March 2005         

updating Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing Common Position 2004/500/CFSP

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 15 and 34 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS COMMON POSITION:

Article 1

The list of persons, groups and entities to which Common Position 2001/931/CFSP applies is contained in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

Common Position 2004/500/CFSP is hereby repealed.

Article 3

This Common Position shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Article 4

This Common Position shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 14 March 2005.

For the Council

The President

F. BODEN            

----

(1)OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 93. Common Position as last amended by Common Position 2004/500/CFSP (OJ L 196, 3.6.2004, p. 12).

(2)OJ L 196, 3.6.2004, p. 12.

----

ANNEX

List of persons, groups and entities referred to in Article 1 (1)

1.   PERSONS

2.   GROUPS AND ENTITIES

----

(1)  Persons, groups and entities marked with an * shall be the subject of Article 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP only.

----
41540.

#### MASHBURN v. VALLEY COACHES, INC.

Eberhardt, Judge.

The allegations of the petition in this trover action were that the seller was entitled to immediate posses*321sion of the automobile under the terms of a sales contract. The buyer refused to relinquish possession. Defendant’s general demurrer was overruled and he excepts. *Held:*

Submitted September 10, 1965

Decided September 21, 1965.

*Harris, Chance, McCracken & Harrison, Henry T. Chance,*for plaintiff in error.

*Henry J. Heffeman,*contra.

1. The overruling of the demurrer was proper, as the right of immediate possession alone will support a trover action. *Youngblood v. Ruis,*96 Ga. App. 290 (99 SE2d 714); *Jones v. Brown,*108 Ga. App. 776, 780 (134 SE2d 440).

2. The buyer agreed under the terms of the contract that “in the event that I am separated from the employment of Radio Cab [the seller] for any reason I will leave in [its] . . . possession . . . the above described property . . . , until satisfactory settlement of balance due is made.” We find no merit in the defendant’s contention that this portion of the contract was “too vague for enforcement” or “incapable of intelligent interpretation.” “Satisfactory settlement” in this context can only mean payment by the buyer of the balance owing on the purchase price in money or in some medium acceptable to the seller.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*
#### § 441.202 General rule.

FFP is not available in expenditures for an abortion unless the conditions specified in §§ 441.203 and 441.206 are met.

[52 FR 47935, Dec. 17, 1987]
41507.

#### BELLINGER v. THE STATE.

Argued September 9, 1965

Decided September 13, 1965

Rehearing denied September 21, 1965.

*B. Clarence Mayfield,*for plaintiff in error.

*Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Solicitor, Sylvan A. Garfunkel,*contra.

Eberhardt, Judge.

Under the ruling of *Murcherson v. State,*ante, this bill of exceptions must be

*Dismissed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*
# DoVosT

- ^oi(

- ^'3 ^ BUTTE-SILVE RBO W OFFIC E O F TH E CHIE F EXECUTIV E Courthouse , 15 5 W . Granite Street , Suite 106 Butte . Montan a59701-925 6 Novembe r

4 , 201 1 1 C O i \

••.•• J •--: \ •_..•:. - ' r;"i-'-: m —r ' i ^ "!--' :t ^ — ; 

### SQ:' ^ P O Mr . Denni s DeVany , Chie f Essentia l Ai r

Servic e Divisio n Offic e o f Aviatio n Analysi s X-5 3 Roo mW86-30 8 Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Ave . S.E . Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Dear Mr . DeVany : Pleas e accep t

thi s lette r

a s m y ofHcia l respons e fromth e City-Count y o f Butte-Silve r

Bo w t o th e proposal s submitte dt o provid e ai r

servic e t o Butte , Montana , unde r th e Essentia l Ai r

Servic e program . After

reviewin g th e tw o proposal s an dconsultin g wit h th e Airpor t

Managemen t

an dAirpor t

Authorit y boar dmembers , I offer m y fijil-support

for th e proposa l submitte db y SkyWes t Airlines . I bas e m

y decisio n o n th e followin g reasons : 1 . Ou r

communit y ha s hadasuccessfu l relationshi p wit h SkyWes t

Airline s for

th e pas t fourtee n years . 2 . Th e SkyWes t

proposa l i s for

ai r servic e t o amedium-size dhub , locate di n Sal t Lak e City . 3 . Th e subsid y i s lowe r than th e othe r

bi dsubmitte db y Gul f

Stream . Althoug h th e bi dfromGul f Strea mpropose s four

mor e flight s pe r

week , th e numbe r

o f seat s woul db e considerabl y less . W e believ e tha t th e reductio n o f

seats , an dno t

goin g t o amedium-size dhu b woul dhav e a significant , negativ e impac t t o ou r econom y an dcontinue dqualit y ai r service . It i s importan t

fo r m e t o stres s t o yo u tha t

ou r airpor t i s acritica l part

o f th e economi c stability , no t onl y t o ou r community , bu t

t o al l o f th e communitie s o f

southwes t

Montan awhos e citizen s an dbusinesse s utiliz e an drel y on th e Ber t

Moone y Airpor t

for thei r ai r service . Again , o n behal f o f al l o f ou r citizens , pleas e accep t thi s lette r

a s ou r full-suppor t

fo r th e SkyWes t

Airlines ' proposal . Than k yo u fo r you r attentio n thi s letter ; and , i f yo u hav e an y questions , pleas e contac t me a t 406-497-6221 .

Chie f Executiv e for

Butt e Silve r

Bo w cc : Pa t Shea , Interi mAirpor t

Manage r Pa mButler , Financ e an dBusines s Developmen t Manage r Airpor t Authorit y Boar dMember s PHONE : (406) 497-6220 • FAX : (406) 497-622 4 • E-MAIL : chiefexec®bsb.mt.gov • www.bsb.mt.go v
#### § 203.10 Preservation of records.

The Office must preserve all correspondence pertaining to the requests that it receives under this part, as well as copies of all requested records, until disposition or destruction is authorized pursuant to title 44 of the United States Code or the General Records Schedule 4.2of the National Archives and Records Administration. The Office shall not dispose of or destroy records while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under FOIA.

[82 FR 9508, Feb. 7, 2017, as amended at 84 FR 3701, Feb. 13, 2019]
EXHIBIT 32.2



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



BY Chief Financial Officer



I, James F. Verhey, Chief Financial Officer of Kaiser Ventures LLC (the
Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



1. The amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2001 (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and



2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                               
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------
|Date: December 2, 2004 |  | /s/ James F. Verhey           
|                       |  | James F. Verhey               
|                       |  | Executive Vice President & CFO



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24893-24894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10196]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Docket No. APHIS-2015-0026]

General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement 
Plan

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: We are giving notice of a meeting of the General Conference

[[Page 24894]]

Committee of the National Poultry Improvement Plan.

DATES: The General Conference Committee meeting will be held on July 
23, 2015, 7:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Little America Hotel, 500 
South Main Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Denise Brinson, Senior 
Coordinator, National Poultry Improvement Plan, VS, APHIS, USDA, 1506 
Klondike Road, Suite 101, Conyers, GA 30094; (770) 922-3496.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The General Conference Committee (the 
Committee) of the National Poultry Improvement Plan, representing 
cooperating State agencies and poultry industry members, serves an 
essential function by acting as liaison between the poultry industry 
and the Department in matters pertaining to poultry health.
    Topics for discussion at the upcoming meeting include:
    1. Approved tests,
    2. National Veterinary Services Laboratories avian influenza 
update,
    3. Salmonella update,
    4. Mycoplasma update, and
    5. U.S. Department of Agriculture updates.
    The meeting will be open to the public. However, due to time 
constraints, the public will not be allowed to participate in the 
discussions during the meeting. Written statements on meeting topics 
may be filed with the Committee before or after the meeting by sending 
them to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 
Statements filed with the Committee should specify that they pertain to 
the July 2015 Committee meeting. Written statements may also be filed 
at the meeting.
    This notice of meeting is given pursuant to section 10 of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2).

    Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of April 2015.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-10196 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
```
June 11, 2015

Mr. Brook Aitken 4734 McKinley Drive Boulder, CO 80303

Dear Mr. Aitken:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 29, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 2009), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

4 r NM£05}II-E-165 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:10 AM Sheet 205 of 264 
P.2 

ID>256 442 4513 PAGE 1/1 ;JUL-0G-98 17.19 FROM.DIXIE PACIFIC MFG 

i A 94 52 

ll?£"-|G S 

Contact Report 

From: Melanie Proctor, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) / ^ # 9/ ^ o^_ Q< 

Date: July 2,1998 

Contact: Mr. Stephen Scharfenberg 

Company: Dixie-Pacific Manufacturing Company, Inc, 

Telephone Number: (256) 442-4513 

Fax Number: (256)442-4794 

& ^ 

Contact Summary: 

Ms. Proctor explained mat PES is working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) on the development of a national emission standard for the plastic composites industry. Ms. 

Proctor added that Dixie-Pacific Manufacturing Company, Inc. was contacted to verity infonnation 

about their facility tiiat was provided to the EPA by the Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management. 

Mr. Scharfenberg confirmed that Dixie-Pacific Manufacturing Company, Inc. uses 

centrifugal casting operations to produce architectural columns. He explained that me molds during 

the casting operation are vented1, but not heated. 

According to Mr. Scharf enberg, Dixie-Pacific Manufacturing Company, Inc. used 355 tons 

of resin, in tic first quarter of 1998. He indicated that the facility lowered the neat resm hazardous 

air pollutant (HAP) content from 39.7 to 35.0 percent He explained that their resins only contain 

stvrene monomer and no methyl methacrylate. He also pointed out that no additional HAP is added 

to their resm al the facility. Mr. Scharfenberg further explained that theft rean contains fUIer which 

consists of calcium carbonate and plastic spheres. He added mat no add-on control devices are used 

by the facility. 

When asked about the facility's mixing operations, Mr. Scharfenberg indicated that the 

mixing vessels at the facility are covered and actively vented to the atmosphere during mixing 

operations. 

Mr. Scharfenberg explained that the facility is not considered to be a small business. He 

indicated that Dixie-Pacific Man jfacturing Company, Inc., which has approximately 300 employees, 

has recently been purchased by & Fortune 500 company. 

INFORMATION IS ACCURATE
#### BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.

[56 C. Cls. 377; 261 U.S. 385.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *affirmed,*and the Supreme Court decided:

To permit a recovery under the Dent Act, c. 94, 40 Stat. 1272, there must have been an agreement, express or implied.

Where, at the instance of Army officers, a railroad company hastened construction of a branch line to reach an ordnance depot, and in so doing, on its own determination, without notice to the Government or mention of compensation, went to additional expenses, *held*that no agreement on the part of the Government to repay them could be implied.

Mr. Justice Saneord

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court March 19, 1923.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>  DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>       SEP-30-1996

<CASH>                     399,948 
<SECURITIES>                  0    
<RECEIVABLES>                1,140 
<ALLOWANCES>                  0    
<INVENTORY>                   0    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>           401,088 
<PP&E>                        0    
<DEPRECIATION>                0    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>           1,080,627 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>       30,858 
<BONDS>                       0    
<COMMON>                      0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0    
<PREFERRED>                   0    
<OTHER-SE>               1,049,769 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>1,080,627 
<SALES>                       0    
<TOTAL-REVENUES>            38,448 
<CGS>                         0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 0    
<OTHER-EXPENSES>           176,880 
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0    
<INCOME-PRETAX>           (138,432)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>       (138,369)
<DISCONTINUED>                0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0    
<CHANGES>                     0    
<NET-INCOME>              (138,369)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                (5.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                (5.51)

        

</TABLE>
ATTACHMENT VII Spectra
#### James Devine, Respondent, *v.*The Metropolitan Street Railway Co., Appellant.

Appeal from, a judgment entered on a verdict rendered by a .jury in favor of the plaintiff, and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made on the judge’s minutes.

Henry *A.*Robinson - (John T. Little, Jr., of counsel),-for appellant. •

Hays, Greenbaum & Hershfleld (Daniel P. Hays, of counsel), ' for-respondent. ••

*Per Curiam.*

Judgment and order appealed from affirmed, ■ with costs.

Present: O’Dwyee and Schu.ohmax, JJ. -

judgment and order affirmed, with cost's.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7659

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GILBERTO NAPOLES-CARDENAS, a/k/a Gilberto

Napoles, a/k/a Gilberto N. Cardenas, a/k/a

Gilberto Cardenas-Napoles, a/k/a Gilberto

Estrada, a/k/a Martin C. Estrada,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-00-131, CA-01-528-1)

Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 26, 2003

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Donald Cowan, Jr., SMITH MOORE, L.L.P., Greensboro, North

Carolina, for Appellant. Arnold L. Husser, OFFICE OF THE 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:

Gilbert Napoles-Cardenas seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude for the

reasons stated by the district court that Napoles-Cardenas has not

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

See United States v. Napoles-Cardenas, Nos. CR-00-131; CA-01-528-1

(M.D.N.C. Oct. 18, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)

(2000). We also deny Napoles-Cardenas’ motion for appointment of

counsel. 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