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.

#### § 42.80 Certificate.

After the Board issues a final written decision in an *inter partes* review, post-grant review, or covered business method patent review and the time for appeal has expired or any appeal has terminated, the Office will issue and publish a certificate canceling any claim of the patent finally determined to be unpatentable, confirming any claim of the patent determined to be patentable, and incorporating in the patent any new or amended claim determined to be patentable by operation of the certificate.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 2.168 Affidavit or declaration under section 15 combined with affidavit or declaration under sections 8 or 71, or with renewal application.

(a) The affidavit or declaration filed under section 15 of the Act may also be used as the affidavit or declaration required by section 8, if the affidavit or declaration meets the requirements of both sections 8 and 15. The affidavit or declaration filed under section 15 of the Act may also be used as the affidavit or declaration required by section 71, if the affidavit or declaration meets the requirements of both sections 71 and 15.

(b) The affidavit or declaration filed under section 15 of the Act may be combined with an application for renewal of a registration under section 9 of the Act, if the requirements of both sections 9 and 15 are met.

[64 FR 48925, Sept. 8, 1999, as amended at 75 FR 35976, June 24, 2010]

###### 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.
PRO

FLIGHT AVIATION, INC., ) 

Complainant ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

CITY OF RENTON, ) 

Respondent. ) 

ORDER 

FAA Docket No. 16-15-03 

On February 17, counsel for Respondent, City of Renton, filed a Motion under 14 CFR 

§ 16.19(e), requesting a 120-day extension of time to file its Answer to the Complaint. 

Counsel advised that the Respondent needs additional time for several reasons including: 

Understaffing and workload at the City Attorney's office and at the Renton Municipal Airport, which hampers the Respondent's ability to fmd and collect supporting 

documentation to submit with the Answer; 

Uncertainty regarding opportunity and timing to secure testimony of two former airport employees who joined the Federal Aviation Administration, which may require other 

means to obtain admissible evidence; and 

Ongoing negotiations between Respondent, Complainant, and The Boeing Company, which may resolve the Part 16 Complaint. 

On February 23, the Complainant filed an Answer to the Motion consenting to a 30-day extension but objecting to a longer extension. The Complainant's principal argument is that any delay in this proceeding is prejudicial to it because the Complainant could irreparably lose its tie-down positions on the disputed airport parcel, which is subject to a lease agreement between the Respondent and The Boeing Company. 
The Director has weighed all arguments to arrive at the decision in this Order. 

The Director finds: 

I. A Motion is the appropriate means to request an extension of time to file. 14 CFR 

§ 16.19(e). Parties may file an Answer in Support or Opposition to a Motion. 

14 CFR. § 16.19(c). These procedural requirements have been met 

2. Although the Respondent provides adequate reasons justifying an extension of time 

to file an Answer, the Complainant's argument of prejudice resulting from delay is 

persuasive. 

3. The Director recognizes that an extension of 120 days is not warranted, but an 

extension of 45 days is reasonable under these circumstances. This extension will 

result in a brief delay, but it balances the interests of each party and maintains 

fairness in this proceeding. 

Accordingly, Respondent is hereby granted a 45-day extension of time in which to file its 

Answer to the Complaint. The Answer is now due on April 17, 2015. Complainant may 

file a Reply within ten days of the date of service of the Answer. 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

Date 
Complainant 

Bernard A. Paholke 

Vice President 

PRO-FLIGHT AVIATION, INC. 

750 W. Perimeter Rd. Unit I 

Renton, W A 98057 

proflightaviationinc@yahoo.com 

Counsel for Respondent 

Zanetta L. Fontes 

Senior Assistant City Attorney 

CITY OF RENTON 

1055 South Grady Way 

Renton, W A 98057 

zfontes@rentonwa.gov 

Hand-Delivered to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) 

FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis (A CO-l 00) 

i I .. · , 

I, k ! I l .. 

v . )( ;7~ ~· 'r' L- L--' ., 1 /l1l ' ---

Clauaia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance
PA DEP TENORM Study Report – Appendix B Rev. 0

January 2015

APPENDIX B

FIELD INSTRUMENTATION QC DOCUMENTATION
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23
- 10263 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **Lionel Deshawn Henderson,** Defendant

— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:22
- CR
- 27 - 1

**____________ __________________**  Before **Elrod, Oldham,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The attorney appointed to represent Lionel Deshawn Henderson has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Henderson has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 5, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-10263 Document: 00516922123 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/05/2023No. 23
- 10263

2 concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further r esponsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2 . Case: 23-10263 Document: 00516922123 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/05/2023
###### 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.

#### § 1.907 *Inter partes* reexamination prohibited.

(a) Once an order to reexamine has been issued under § 1.931, neither the third party requester, nor its privies, may file a subsequent request for *inter partes* reexamination of the patent until an *inter partes* reexamination certificate is issued under § 1.997, unless authorized by the Director.

(b) Once a final decision has been entered against a party in a civil action arising in whole or in part under 28 U.S.C. 1338 that the party has not sustained its burden of proving invalidity of any patent claim-in-suit, then neither that party nor its privies may thereafter request *inter partes* reexamination of any such patent claim on the basis of issues which that party, or its privies, raised or could have raised in such civil action, and an *inter partes* reexamination requested by that party, or its privies, on the basis of such issues may not thereafter be maintained by the Office.

(c) If a final decision in an *inter partes* reexamination proceeding instituted by a third party requester is favorable to patentability of any original, proposed amended, or new claims of the patent, then neither that party nor its privies may thereafter request *inter partes* reexamination of any such patent claims on the basis of issues which that party, or its privies, raised or could have raised in such *inter partes* reexamination proceeding.

###### 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.
Exhibit 32.2

CFO CERTIFICATION

I, Andrew Kim,
certify that:



| | (1) | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of TCW Direct Lending
VIII LLC; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                              
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: April 28, 2022 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Andrew Kim               
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Andrew Kim                   
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | (Principal Financial 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.

#### § 1.34 Acting in a representative capacity.

When a patent practitioner acting in a representative capacity appears in person or signs a paper in practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office in a patent case, his or her personal appearance or signature shall constitute a representation to the United States Patent and Trademark Office that under the provisions of this subchapter and the law, he or she is authorized to represent the particular party on whose behalf he or she acts. In filing such a paper, the patent practitioner must set forth his or her registration number, his or her name and signature. Further proof of authority to act in a representative capacity may be required.

[70 FR 56127, Sept. 26, 2005]

###### 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet and Income Statement and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          20,363
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,436
<INVENTORY>                                     67,391
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               168,614
<PP&E>                                         160,099
<DEPRECIATION>                                  55,099
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 298,697
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,845
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           236
<OTHER-SE>                                     227,431
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   298,697
<SALES>                                        179,899
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               181,025
<CGS>                                           83,777
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   83,777
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  18
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,420
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,947
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,072
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,072
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.75 
        

</TABLE>
#### Thomas Reidy, Respondent, *v.*The Metropolitan Street Railway Co., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

May, 1899.)

ITegligence — Attempt to board a street car — Contributory negligence.

Testimony of a person that he signalled a street car to stop, that it slowed' up, and that after it had passed his crossing he tried to board it while it was still in motion and that, because the motion was then quickened, he was thrown from its step and injured, when not accompanied by proof that any operator of the car was aware of the person’s attempt to stop the car or board it, does not show that the person was free from negligence nor that the corporation was guilty of it. . -

Appeal from a judgment; rendered in favor of the plaintiff, against the defendant in the Third District Municipal Court, borough of Manhattan.

Henry A. Robinson, for appellant.

Albert L. Teele, for respondent.

*528Freedman, P, J.

This is an- action to recover damages for personal injuries, sustained through the alleged negligence of-the. defendant.

The plaintiff neither shows himself free from negligence, nor does he show that the. defendant was guilty of negligence, His testimony is to the effect that he was standing on 'the southwest corner of .Thirty-fourth street and Eighth avenue, waiting, for a downtown car; that he saw one Coming towards him; that he piit his hand up- as ,a signal to the ear to stop; that the car began to slow down, but did not stop; that he then ran towards it; and that as it got below the crossing and while. still- in motion, he. attempted to get on, and had one hand on the rail and one foot on the step of thé car, when the car suddenly started and he was thrown, to the ground and received the injuries complained of. It also appears from-his testimony that the car had passed the downtown crossing. -

There is no. testimony showing that the car slowed down in response to,the signal or call of the plaintiff, nor does it appear that either the gripman or the conductor became aware that the plaintiff desired, or was attempting, to board the car. For aught that appears, the slackening of the speed of the car while passing ' the- crossing may have been due to a cause- other than the signal -- . -of the plaintiff, and in the absence of proof- that such reduction of speed was made in response to plaintiff’s efforts to attract'attem tion, he has no ground for assuming that such change in the speed of the car was made for his benefit or convenience.

It, therefore, affirmatively appears that the plaintiff was guilty ' of contributory -negligence. - -

Upon the question of defendant’s negligence, the case is as com.' sistent with the exercise of due care as with negligence, and tibisis not enough. The judgment should be reversed.

MacLeah, J., concurring; Leventritt, J., taking no part.

• Judgment' reversed, new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event. ''
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3

         List of Contents of Exhibits and Schedules to the RIC (Landmark) Quota
                          Share Reinsurance Agreement

                    Exhibits                      Description

Exhibit A                          Form of Accounting and Settlement Reports

                    Schedules                     Description

Schedule 6.1(b)                   Third Parties to Whom Reinsurer May Assign its
                                  Authority
§ 1.481 Disclosure of medical records of veterans who receive non-VA health care. ( a ) VA may disclose records referred to in 38 U.S.C. 7332(a) to a non-VA entity (including private entities and other Federal agencies) for purposes of providing health care to patients or performing other health care-related activities or functions.
( b ) An entity to which a record is disclosed under this section may not disclose or use such record for a purpose other than that for which the disclosure was made or as permitted by law.
[85 FR 64043, Oct. 9, 2020]
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15D0227. HARVEY VINCENT et al. v. BRANDI CHEYANNE VINCENT.

Harvey Vincent and Annie Nell Vincent, the paternal grandparents of minor

children L. G. V. and B. T. V., filed a petition for grandparent visitation. Their

former daughter-in-law, Brandi Cheyanne Vincent, was named as respondent. The

trial court denied the grandparents’s petition, and they filed this application for

discretionary appeal.

Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11), “[a]ll judgments or orders in child custody

cases awarding, refusing to change, or modifying child custody or holding or

declining to hold personsin contempt of such child custody judgment or orders” may

be appealed directly. Under Georgia law, “[v]isitation is considered a custody issue.” 

Daniels v. Barnes, 289 Ga. App. 897, 899 n. 1 (658 SE2d 472) (2008); see also

OCGA § 19- 9-41 (4) (defining “child custody proceeding” as “a proceeding in which

legal custody, physical custody, or visitation with respect to a child is in issue.”).

Thus, the order that the grandparents seek to appeal is directly appealable.

Ordinarily, we will grant a timely application when the lower court’s order is

subject to direct appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). In this case, however, the

grandparents have already filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order. 

Accordingly, this application is superfluous, and it is therefore DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/30/2015

January 30, 2015