alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 202
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 202 appear at 76 FR 27898, May 13, 2011.

§ 202.10 Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works. ( a ) In order to be acceptable as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, the work must embody some creative authorship in its delineation or form. The registrability of such a work is not affected by the intention of the author as to the use of the work or the number of copies reproduced. The availability of protection or grant of protection under the law for a utility or design patent will not affect the registrability of a claim in an original work of pictorial, graphic, or sculptural authorship.
( b ) A claim to copyright cannot be registered in a print or label consisting solely of trademark subject matter and lacking copyrightable matter. While the Copyright Office will not investigate whether the matter has been or can be registered at the Patent and Trademark Office, it will register a properly filed copyright claim in a print or label that contains the requisite qualifications for copyright even though there is a trademark on it. However, registration of a claim to copyright does not give the claimant rights available by trademark registrations at the Patent and Trademark Office.
[46 FR 33249, June 29, 1981, as amended at 60 FR 15606, Mar. 24, 1995; 61 FR 5445, Feb. 12, 1996]
New Purchasing Regulations for Russian Importers, March 1999

----

 MARCH 1999
Author: Alexei Kim, BISNIS Representative in St. Peterburg, Russia
International Copyright, U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service and U.S. Department ofState,
115 STAT. 2408 PUBLIC LAW 107–129—JAN. 16, 2002

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3248:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):

Dec. 5, considered and passed House.

Dec. 20, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–129

107th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 65 North

Main Street in Cranbury, New Jersey, as the ‘‘Todd Beamer Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

65 North Main Street in Cranbury, New Jersey, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Todd Beamer Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Todd Beamer

Post Office Building’’.

Approved January 16, 2002.

Jan. 16, 2002

[H.R. 3248]
§ 104.22 Demand for testimony or production of documents. ( a ) Whenever a demand for testimony or for the production of documents is made upon an employee, the employee shall immediately notify the Office of the General Counsel at the telephone number or addresses in § 104.2 and make arrangements to send the subpoena to the General Counsel promptly.
( b ) An employee may not give testimony, produce documents, or answer inquiries from a person not employed by the Office regarding testimony or documents subject to a demand or a potential demand under the provisions of this subpart without the approval of the General Counsel. The General Counsel may authorize the provision of certified copies not otherwise available under Part 1 of this title subject to payment of applicable fees under § 1.19.
( c ) ( 1 ) *Demand for testimony or documents.* A demand for the testimony of an employee under this subpart shall be addressed to the General Counsel as indicated in § 104.2.
( 2 ) *Subpoenas.* A subpoena for employee testimony or for a document shall be served in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure or applicable state procedure, and a copy of the subpoena shall be sent to the General Counsel as indicated in § 104.2.
( 3 ) *Affidavits.* Except when the United States is a party, every demand shall be accompanied by an affidavit or declaration under 28 U.S.C. 1746 or 35 U.S.C. 25(b) setting forth the title of the legal proceeding, the forum, the requesting party's interest in the legal proceeding, the reason for the demand, a showing that the desired testimony or document is not reasonably available from any other source, and, if testimony is requested, the intended use of the testimony, a general summary of the desired testimony, and a showing that no document could be provided and used in lieu of testimony.
( d ) Failure of the attorney to cooperate in good faith to enable the General Counsel to make an informed determination under this subpart may serve as a basis for a determination not to comply with the demand.
( e ) A determination under this subpart to comply or not to comply with a demand is not a waiver or an assertion of any other ground for noncompliance, including privilege, lack of relevance, or technical deficiency.
( f ) *Noncompliance.* If the General Counsel makes a determination not to comply, he or she will seek Department of Justice representation for the employee and will attempt to have the subpoena modified or quashed. If Department of Justice representation cannot be arranged, the employee should appear at the time and place set forth in the subpoena. In such a case, the employee should produce a copy of these rules and state that the General Counsel has advised the employee not to provide the requested testimony nor to produce the requested document. If a legal tribunal rules that the demand in the subpoena must be complied with, the employee shall respectfully decline to comply with the demand, citing *United States ex rel. Touhy* v. *Ragen,* 340 U.S. 462 (1951).
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 9:19 AM

To: 'eric@aviationunmanned.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); Schandler, Andrea (FAA); Cooper, Thuy (FAA); Pearson, Lakisha 

(FAA)

Subject: Request for Information: Aviation Unmanned

February 2, 2015 

Mr. Eric Fay 

Aviation Unmanned 

4125 Centurion Way, Suite 100 

Addison, Texas 75001 

Dear Mr. Fay: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2014-0895). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Provide the maximum flight time for the proposed UAS operation. 

 Provide description of proximity to populated areas. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail 333exemptions@faa.gov. If 

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by February 

17, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075
2

nia.daniels@faa.gov
Dir ID: FAA - 2015 - 6550 Docket No: 2016 - NM - 162 - AD
§ 510.100 Episodes being tested. ( a ) *Initiation of an episode.* An episode is initiated when, with respect to a beneficiary described in § 510.205— ( 1 ) The participant hospital admits the beneficiary for an anchor hospitalization; or
( 2 ) On or after July 4, 2021, an anchor procedure is performed at the participant hospital.
( b ) *Exclusions.* A hospital is excluded from being a participant hospital, but only so long as any of the following conditions apply: ( 1 ) The hospital is an episode initiator for an LEJR episode in the risk-bearing period of Models 2 or 4 of BPCI.
( 2 ) The hospital is participating in Model 1 of BPCI.
( 3 ) These exclusions cease to apply as of the date that the hospital no longer meets any of the conditions specified in this paragraph.
[80 FR 73540, Nov. 24, 2015, as amended at 86 FR 23570, May 3, 2021]
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 185 (Friday, September 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48919-48922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22945]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 09-51]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittals 09-51 with attached transmittal, and 
policy justification.

    Dated: September 15, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P

[[Page 48920]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25SE09.000


[[Page 48921]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25SE09.001


[[Page 48922]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25SE09.002

[FR Doc. E9-22945 Filed 9-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 48576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22885]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Task Force on Community Preventive Services

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announce the following meeting:

    Name: Task Force on Community Preventive Services Meeting.
    Times and Dates: 8 a.m.-5:30 p.m. EST, October 14, 2009. 8 a.m.-
1 p.m. EST, October 15, 2009.
    Place: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2500 Century 
Parkway, Room 1200/1201, Atlanta, Georgia 30345.
    Status: Open to the public, limited only by space available.
    Purpose: The mission of the Task Force is to develop and publish 
the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide), which 
is based on the best available scientific evidence and current 
expertise regarding essential public health and what works in the 
delivery of those services.
    Topics:

--Interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical and 
colorectal cancer and of interventions to increase vaccination 
rates: Updates of reviews.
--Assessing effectiveness of interventions to increase physical 
activity.
--Assessing the scope of reviews of interventions to reduce 
inequalities in health outcomes.

    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
    Contact person for additional information: Freda Parker, 
Community Guide Branch, Coordinating Center for Health Information 
and Service, National Center for Health Marking, Division of Health 
Communication and Marketing, 1600 Clifton Road, M/S E-69, Atlanta, 
GA 30333, phone: 404.498.1119.

    Dated: September 17, 2009.
Tanja Popovic,
Chief Science Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E9-22885 Filed 9-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
Summary Statement

In summary, Brock Wilkerson seeks an exemption from the FARs set forth above and in Appendix A

to allow commercial operations of a small unmanned vehicle conducting aerial video/photographs, 

mapping and inspections of cell towers, power transmission lines, bridges and video/photographs of 

commercial properties. Approval of the exemption allowing commercial operations of the DJI Inspire 1 

for aerial video/photographs will enhance safety by reducing risk. Conventional aerial video/

photography operations, using conventional aircraft, present risks associated with vehicles that weigh 

several thousand pounds, carry large quantities of fuel and passengers. Such aircraft must fly to and 

from the survey location. Rountine cell tower, power transmission line and bridge inspections present 

a large amount of risk to personnel and is considered one of the most dangerous occupations today. 

In contrast, a DJI Inspire 1, weighing less than 7 lbs and powered by batteries, eliminates a portion of 

that risk given the reduced mass and lack of combustible fuel carried on board. The Inspire 1 is 

carried to the survey location, not flown there. The Inspire 1 will carry no passengers or crew and, 

therefore, will not expose any individuals to the risks associated with manned aircraft flights. 

Additionally, no national security issue is raised by the grant of the requested exemptions. Given the 

size, load carrying capacity, speed at which it operates, and the fact that it carries no explosives or 

other dangerous materials, the Inspire 1 poses no threat to national security. The operation of the 

Inspire 1, weighing less than 7 lbs, for aerial video/photography, mapping and infrastucutre 

inspections is in accordance with the strict conditions outlined above, and will provide an equivalent 

level of safety supporting the grant of the exemptions requested herein, including exempting Brock 

Wilkerson from the requirements of Part 21.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: SE00078A2

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Illini Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the hereof (the “Report”), I George A.Rosenbaum, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 
| /s/ George A. Rosenbaum,  Jr. |
|-------------------------------|
|                          |
| George A. Rosenbaum, Jr.      |
| Chief Financial Officer       |
| November 12, 2002             |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6493

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DAVID ANTHONY HAMBLIN, a/k/a Dread, a/k/a

Dreadlock,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District

Judge. (CR-92-348-A, CA-97-678-AM)

Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 9, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Anthony Hamblin, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

David Anthony Hamblin seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994

& Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. United States v. Hamblin, Nos. CR-92-348-A;

CA-97-678-AM (E.D. Va. Dec. 15, 1997). 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
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2008-CI-18479, styled Dedic Mancha, et al. v. Tango Transport,

Inc. and Jim Avara, pending in the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Janet Littlejohn

presiding. However, the order complained of was signed by the Honorable David A. Berchelmann, presiding judge of

the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas. 

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00804-CV

IN RE TANGO TRANSPORT, L.L.C. d/b/a TANGO TRANSPORT, INC.

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 23, 2009

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On December 15, 2009, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for

emergency stay. The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the

opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of

mandamus and the motion for emergency stay are DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM
#### Hugh J. Miller, Plaintiff, *v.*Annie B. Miller, Defendant.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

June, 1899.)

Absolute divorce ^ Alimony refused Wife who does not deny adultery — Husband’s income.

• Unless a wife denies upon oath her husband’s charge of adultery, she will be denied alimony and counsel fees pending his action for an absolute divorce.

' Upon such a motion, her affidavits must Contain allegations Upon . which the court may, With satisfactory Certainty, base a finding as to her husband’s income.

Motion for alimony and counsel fee in action of husband against wife.

D. E. Hanrehan, for motion.

Sands *&*Wasservogel, opposed.

Gildersleeve, J.

This is a motion for alimony and counsel fee. The action is for an absolute divorce, instituted by the husband against the wife. It is well Settled, in. a case of this kind, that where the wife denies, on oath, the charge of adultery, she-will be allowed alimony and counsel fee, even though the husband submits affidavits in support of the charge, as so important a question should not be decided on conflicting affidavits; unless: *759indeed the wife’s guilt appears established beyond all reasonable doubt. See Frickel v. Frickel, 4 Misc. Rep. 382; 24 N. Y. Supp. 483. In the case at bar, however, no papers are handed up on the, motion showing a denial, on oath, of the charge of adultery. Furthermore, there are no allegations, in the one affidavit presented by defendant, upon which the court can, with satisfactory certainty, base a finding as to the amount of the income of the husband. I am of opinion that the motion papers are insufficient and that the application must be denied, with leave to defendant to renew the same on proper papers. Ho costs. '

Motion denied, with leave to renew. Ho costs.
###### 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.

#### § 41.207 Presumptions.

(a) *Priority* —

(1) *Order of invention.* Parties are presumed to have invented interfering subject matter in the order of the dates of their accorded benefit for each count. If two parties are accorded the benefit of the same earliest date of constructive reduction to practice, then neither party is entitled to a presumption of priority with respect to the other such party.

(2) *Evidentiary standard.* Priority may be proved by a preponderance of the evidence except a party must prove priority by clear and convincing evidence if the date of its earliest constructive reduction to practice is after the issue date of an involved patent or the publication date under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) of an involved application or patent.

(b) *Claim correspondence.*

(1) For the purposes of determining priority and derivation, all claims of a party corresponding to the count are presumed to stand or fall together. To challenge this presumption, a party must file a timely substantive motion to have a corresponding claim designated as not corresponding to the count. No presumption based on claim correspondence regarding the grouping of claims exists for other grounds of unpatentability.

(2) A claim corresponds to a count if the subject matter of the count, treated as prior art to the claim, would have anticipated or rendered obvious the subject matter of the claim.

(c) *Cross-applicability of prior art.* When a motion for judgment of unpatentability against an opponent's claim on the basis of prior art is granted, each of the movant's claims corresponding to the same count as the opponent's claim will be presumed to be unpatentable in view of the same prior art unless the movant in its motion rebuts this presumption.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

SOUTH FLORIDA IMAGING AND DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, INC. d/b/a

TESLA MRI a/a/o KYLAHIA CAMPBELL, Appellant,

v.

DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 4D22

- 2057

[May 10, 2023]

Appeal from the C ounty Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Melanie Dale Surber , Judge; L.T. Case No.

50 2021SC017340

.

Chad A. Barr of Chad Barr Law, Altamonte Springs, for appellant.

William J. McFarlane, III and Michael K. Mittelmark of McFarlane Law, Coral Springs, for appellee.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

P ER C URIAM

.

Appellant South Florida Imaging appeals the circuit court’s order that granted appellee Direct General Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss

and dismissed the case

. Appellant argues the circuit court incorrectly considered documents outside of the four corners of the complaint. In response, appellee commendably confesses error. Based on appellee’s proper confession of error, we rever se the circuit court’s dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded

.

M AY
, C IKLIN and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 63.6 How to apply. ( a ) Application for a traineeship shall be made in writing as prescribed by the Director.
( b ) In addition to other pertinent information, the Director may require each applicant to submit the following information: ( 1 ) Certification of the applicant's citizenship status;
( 2 ) The applicant's educational background and other qualifications and experience, including previous academic and professional degrees, if any; and
( 3 ) The subject area of the proposed training.
( c ) By applying, eligible individuals agree to abide by HHS, PHS, and NIH regulations, and the terms and conditions of the traineeship award which may require compliance with policies and procedures that apply to the proper conduct of research, such as research involving human and animal subjects, patient care, hospital and laboratory procedures, handling of confidential information, and outside employment.