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.

#### § 42.14 Public availability.

The record of a proceeding, including documents and things, shall be made available to the public, except as otherwise ordered. A party intending a document or thing to be sealed shall file a motion to seal concurrent with the filing of the document or thing to be sealed. The document or thing shall be provisionally sealed on receipt of the motion and remain so pending the outcome of the decision on the motion.
#### § 57.1509 Forms of credit and security instruments.

Each loan with respect to which a guarantee is made or interest subsidies are paid under this subpart shall be evidenced by a credit instrument and secured by a security instrument in such forms as may be acceptable to the Secretary.
###### 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 Part 5

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 5 appear at 68 FR 14338, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 5.12 Petition for license.

(a) Filing of an application in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on an invention made in the United States will be considered to include a petition for license under 35 U.S.C. 184 for the subject matter of the application. The filing receipt or other official notice will indicate if a license is granted. If the initial automatic petition is not granted, a subsequent petition may be filed under paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) A petition for license must include the fee set forth in § 1.17(g) of this chapter, the petitioner's address, and full instructions for delivery of the requested license when it is to be delivered to other than the petitioner. The petition should be presented in letter form.

[48 FR 2714, Jan. 20, 1983, as amended at 49 FR 13462, Apr. 4, 1984; 62 FR 53204, Oct. 10, 1997; 65 FR 54683, Sept. 8, 2000; 69 FR 56546, Sept. 21, 2004; 80 FR 17970, Apr. 2, 2015; 85 FR 61607, Sept. 30, 2020]

###### 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.
6

The alternatives were analyzed for their impacts in comparison to a

No-Action Alternative. The No-Action Alternative reflects conditions

expected to exist in the Year 2025 if the CVPIA had not been adopted

and provides a basis for comparison of other alternatives. It includes

existing facilities and land uses, as well as projections concerning

future growth, land use changes, and changes in CVP operational policies which are being considered and have undergone separate environmental documentation. The No-Action Alternative also includes

assumptions concerning concurrent, but separately evaluated issues.

One example is the assumption that ocean harvest limitations for sport

and commercial salmon fishing would be consistent with 1992 policies. The PEIS recognizes that those issues may be evaluated in a separate process, but not by the PEIS.

Assumptions for Physical Features 

Under the No-Action 

Existing physical features of the CVP constitute the starting point for

defining the No-Action Alternative. The No-Action Alternative also

includes projects that would have been implemented without adoption of the CVPIA. The criteria for inclusion of the future facilities in

the No-Action Alternative required that the project have:

■ Authorization and funding for design;

■ Final environmental documents, permits, and approvals; and

■ Initial authorization and funding for construction without

CVPIA.

Assumptions for Operations 

Under the No-Action Alternative

The operational and regulatory policies and assumptions included in

the No-Action Alternative were already in existence or were being

developed prior to the adoption of CVPIA. The No-Action Alternative

includes assumptions about results of ongoing evaluation processes

for these policies. For example, the No-Action Alternative includes

assumptions for implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Accord. 

■ All Existing Facilities and Land Uses

■ Shasta Temperature Control Device funded

by non-CVPIA funds. Facilities under construction during Draft PEIS preparation

■ Bay-Delta Plan per SWRCB 

Water Rights Decisions

■ CVP Water Contract Renewals

■ Level 2 Refuge Water Supplies from 

Historic Sources

■ Trinity River Instream Flows of 340,000

acre-feet/year

■ Increased Water Rights Demands per

Department of Water Resources Bulletin

160-93

■ Service/Reclamation Conservation Program

■ Implement CVP Conservation Program to

benefit priority and special status species

■ All Existing Facilities

■ Shasta Temperature Control Device

■ State Water Project Coastal Aqueduct

■ Metropolitan Water District Eastside

Reservoir

■ Contra Costa Water District 

Los Vaqueros Reservoir

■ Coleman Fish Hatchery

■ Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge

■ Old River Barrier

No-Action Alternative Definition

No-Action Alternative Physical Features

Description of the 

No-Action Alternative
ACCEPTED

03-14-00734-CR

3608753

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

12/29/2014 5:32:54 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

NO. 03-14-00734-CR 

In The Third Court of Appeals 

Austin, Texas 

BRUCE WAYNE HARKEY 

Appellant 

v. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee 

Cause no. CRS 7 31 

On Appeal from the 33rd Judicial District Court of Llano County, 

Llano, Texas 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF 

TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS: 

Appellant, Bruce Wayne Harkey, pursuant to Rule 10.5 of the Texas Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, by and through his attorney of record, requests an 

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/29/2014 5:32:54 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
extension of time to file appellant's brief, and in support thereof would show the 

court the following: 

1_The reporter's record was filed on December 1, 2014. The clerk's record was 

filed on November 17, 2014. 

2_Under the court's briefing schedule, the appellant's brief is currently due on 

January 5, 2015. 

3_The Court Reporter's Record exceeds ten (10) volumes oftestimony and the 

trial before the jury was approximately one and one-half week in duration. 

More than 100 exhibits were admitted. 

4_The undersigned attorney has an extensive trial practice, both civil and 

criminal. Further, the undersigned counsel has numerous and regular court 

appearances consisting of motions to revoke and suppression hearings. 

Likewise, the undersigned is preparing for several jury trials which are subject 

to being tried within the following sixty (60) days. 

5_ In order to prepare a brief that will be of assistance to the Court, the 

undersigned seeks a 60-day extension of time to file its appellant's brief, so 

that the briefwill be due on March 6, 2015. 

6_This is the first request for an extension of time to file Appellant's brief. This 

extension is not sought solely for delay, but is necessary so that justice can be 

done. 

For these reasons, Appellant respectfully requests that the Court grant this 

motion to extend the time for filing Appellant's brief and allow that brief to be 
filed on or before March 6, 2015. Appellant also requests any other relief to 

which it may be entitled. 

~ 

Respectfully submitted, 

111 E. Jackson Street 

PO Box 398 

Burnet, Texas 78611 

(512)756-5117 

(512) 756-0164 Fax 

State Bar No. 05537100 

Email: rdd@austin. twcbc.com 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Extension of 

Time to File Appellant's Brief has been hand delivered, or sent by U.S. mail, certified 

return receipt requested, or transmitted by telephonic transfer to the counsel for the State, 

Gary W. Bunyard, of the Office of the District Attorney of Llano County, P.O. Box 725, 

Llano, Texas 78643; on this th~ 1~day of J) e_ c..~~, 2014. 

RICHARD D. DAVIS 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

The undersigned by his signature below certifies that the District Attorney's Office of the 

33RD Judicial District has been contacted and that this motion i
###### 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.

#### § 11.50 Evidence.

(a) *Rules of evidence.* The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity are not controlling in hearings in disciplinary proceedings. However, the hearing officer shall exclude evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial, speculative, or unduly repetitious.

(b) *Depositions.* Depositions of witnesses taken pursuant to § 11.51 may be admitted as evidence.

(c) *Government documents.* Official documents, records, and papers of the Office, including, but not limited to, all papers in the file of a disciplinary investigation, are admissible without extrinsic evidence of authenticity. These documents, records, and papers may be evidenced by a copy certified as correct by an employee of the Office.

(d) *Exhibits.* If any document, record, or other paper is introduced in evidence as an exhibit, the hearing officer may authorize the withdrawal of the exhibit subject to any conditions the hearing officer deems appropriate.

(e) *Objections.* Objections to evidence will be in short form, stating the grounds of objection. Objections and rulings on objections will be a part of the record. No exception to the ruling is necessary to preserve the rights of the parties.

[73 FR 47689, Aug. 14, 2008, as amended at 86 FR 28462, May 26, 2021]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      11,000
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              190,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (70,000)
<INVENTORY>                                979,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         1,110,000
<PP&E>                                     380,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (333,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,698,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    1,868,000
<BONDS>                                    472,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                              1,503,000
<COMMON>                                    36,000
<OTHER-SE>                              (1,181,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             2,698,000
<SALES>                                    856,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           856,000
<CGS>                                      342,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              342,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            44,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            70,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          24,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             34,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         34,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                34,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                 .001
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 .000


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 185 (Friday, September 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48911-48914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22942]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 09-50]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(h)(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 09-50 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 48912]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25SE09.006


[[Page 48913]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25SE09.007


[[Page 48914]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25SE09.008

[FR Doc. E9-22942 Filed 9-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 423/2005

of 14 March 2005         

fixing Community producer and import prices for carnations and roses with a view to the application of the arrangements governing imports of certain floricultural products originating in Jordan

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4088/87 of 21 December 1987 fixing conditions for the application of preferential customs duties on imports of certain flowers originating in Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (1), and in particular Article 5(2)(a) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Community producer and import prices for uniflorous (bloom) carnations, multiflorous (spray) carnations, large-flowered roses and small-flowered roses as referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 4088/87 shall be as set out in the Annex hereto for the period from 16 to 29 March 2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 14 March 2005.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 382, 31.12.1987, p. 22. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1300/97 (OJ L 177, 5.7.1997, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 72, 18.3.1988, p. 16. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2062/97 (OJ L 289, 22.10.1997, p. 1).

(3)OJ L 346, 31.12.2003, p. 65.

(4)OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 117.

(5)OJ L 2, 5.1.2005, p. 4.

----

ANNEX

----
#### Mairs *against*Sparks.

A RULE had been obtained to shew cause why the writ of certiorari should not be set aside, upon the ground that it was allowed and issued before judgment given. The facts seemed to be, that this was an action of *forcible entry and detainer*tried at *Salem;*that as soon as the verdict was rendered and judgment pronounced, and before it wras recorded, *Orane,*attorney for the defendant, presented to the justice this writ; the judge who gave the allocatur, living many miles distant.

Allocatur certiorari,

*Jeffers*for defendant in certiorari. *Orane*for plaintiff.

Kirkpatrick C. J.

This court will not, in this way, inquire into the time of making the allocatur on the certiorari. It is the constant practice, under certain circumstances, to make the allocatur, so that the party may have it in his possession when j udgment is rendered: *(a)*
      **and it is necessary that it should be so. In many cases it is the only way in which an execution and a change of possession can be prevented, no matter how illegal the proceedings may have been. As soon as judgment is pronounced, a writ of error may be presented, and the party is not bound to wait until the judgment is enrolled.

Rossell J. was of the same opinion.

Southard J.

was not altogether satisfied with the practice, but considered it as having heretofore received the sanction of this court, and therefore settled.

Rule discharged.

*Mairs vs. Sparks, 2 South. 513. Delancy vs. Lawrence, 6 Hal. 25. Morris Canal ads. Mitchell, 2 Vr. 99. State, Elder vs. Med. Soc. 6 Vr. 203.*See *Harrison vs. Sloan, 1 Hal. 410, 414. Ludlow vs. Ludlow, post 387.*
§ 382.3 Making payment of royalty fees. ( a ) *Payment to the Collective.* A Licensee must make the royalty payments due under subparts B and C of this part to SoundExchange, Inc., which is the Collective designated by the Copyright Royalty Board to collect and distribute royalties under this part. If any payment due date is a weekend or a federal holiday, then the payment is due on the first business day thereafter.
( b ) *Advance payment.* Licensees must pay the Collective an annual advance payment of $100,000 by January 31 of each year. The Collective must credit 5% of the advance payment as payment of the minimum fee for Ephemeral Recordings and credit the remaining 95% to section 114 royalties. The funds are nonrefundable. Any uncredited portion of the funds shall not carry over into a subsequent year.
( c ) *Minimum payments.* A Licensee must make any minimum annual payment due under subpart B or C of this part by January 31 of the applicable license year.
( d ) *Monthly payments.* A Licensee must make royalty payments on a monthly basis. Payments are due on or before the 45th day after the end of the month in which the Licensee made Eligible Transmissions.
( e ) *Late fees.* A Licensee must pay a late fee for each payment and each Statement of Account that the Collective receives after the due date. The late fee is 1.5% (or the highest lawful rate, whichever is lower) of the late payment amount per month. The late fee for a late Statement of Account is 1.5% of the payment amount associated with the Statement of Account. Late fees accrue from the due date until the date that the Collective receives the late payment or late Statement of Account. ( 1 ) *Waiver of late fees.* The Collective may waive or lower late fees for immaterial or inadvertent failures of a Licensee to make a timely payment or submit a timely Statement of Account.
( 2 ) Notice regarding noncompliant Statements of Account. If it is reasonably evident to the Collective that a timely-provided Statement of Account is materially noncompliant, the Collective must notify the Licensee within 90 days of discovery of the noncompliance.
#### § 50.206 Sterilization of a mentally incompetent individual or of an institutionalized individual.

Programs or projects to which this subpart applies shall not perform or arrange for the performance of a sterilization of any mentally incompetent individual or institutionalized individual.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16** 
**- 1585** 

CHARLES CLAIR ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

JOHN DOE, CLERK OF THE STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OF ST. MARY'S COUNTY, MD; JOHN DOE, Clerk of Circuit Court of St. Mary's County, MD ,
Defendants

– Appellees,

and

THOMAS V. MIKE MILLER, JR., Attorney; PETER O'NEIL,

Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Paul W. Grimm , District Judge. ( 8:14

- cv
- 00713

- PWG )

Submitted : November 4, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Charles Clair, Appellant Pro Se. Brian E. Frosh, Atto rney General, Jennifer L. Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Charles Clair appeals the district court ’ s order s granting

the motion to dismiss his amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012) and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See Clair v. Doe , No. 8:14

-

cv
- 00713

- PWG (D. M d. Apr. 29, 2016; Feb. 1, 2016). We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before th is court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 16

- 00223

- CR

IN RE AUGUSTINE CANT U 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 JusticeIn 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]