alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1.527 Administrative review. ( a ) Any person may, in the event of a denial of his or her request to inspect or obtain information from or copies of records within the purview of §§ 1.501 through 1.526, appeal such denial. Such appeal, stating the circumstances of the denial, should be addressed, as appropriate, to the field facility, administration, or staff office head.
( b ) A denial action not reversed by a field facility, administration, or staff office head on appeal, will be referred through normal channels to the General Counsel.
( c ) The final agency decision in such appeals will be made by the General Counsel or the Deputy General Counsel.
[32 FR 10850, July 25, 1967, as amended at 55 FR 21546, May 25, 1990]
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2127 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 19, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 408 West 6th Street in Chelsea, Oklahoma, 

as the ‘‘Clem Rogers McSpadden Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

HR 2127 RFS

1 SECTION 1. CLEM ROGERS MCSPADDEN POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 408 West 6th Street in Chelsea, 

5 Oklahoma, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Clem 

6 Rogers McSpadden Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Clem Rogers 

11 McSpadden Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 18, 2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
#### Harris G. Stephens, Respondent, *v.*Samuel McAlpin, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Norwood & Dilley (Carlisle Norwood and John Winthrop Fiske, of counsel), for appellant.

Henry Gottgetreu, for respondent.

Fitzsimons, Ch. J.

The complaint alleges that defendant engaged plaintiff for one year commencing 1st of January, 1895; that on October 2, 1895, without any good cause, discharged him. Defendant’s answer admits the. making of the contract, admits plaintiff’s discharge on October 2d, but alleges good cause for such discharge. Issue was joined on February, 1896. In January, 1899, the action was tried. At the commencement of the trial plaintiff moved to amend his complaint by alleging that his discharge occurred on September 20th. At the end of the trial his motion was granted against defendant’s objection. Nothing happened during the trial which, in our judgment, entitled plaintiff to the amendment-asked for. By such amendment he hoped to avoid the consequences of many of his transgressions occurring between September-20th and October 2d, and which would justify his discharge.

In our judgment the trial justice erred in granting the amendment in question. Plaintiff, in February, 1896,. when the date of his discharge was fresh in his memory, alleged its occurrence on October 2, 1895, which was admited by defendant. He should hot have been permitted in January, 1899, and during the very *833trial of the issue so made by him, to change its date to September 20th. .

Has motion to amend should have been denied upon the ground of his laches.1' If he wanted to amend at all he should have asked to have a juror withdrawn and have applied to the Special Term for the desired relief, when the application could have been fully and fairly presented and argued, and if granted, would have been granted upon proper terms. Material amendments, such as this one was, should not be allowed at the trial, and such applications should not be encouraged. The bed that litigants make and lie in up to the trial, should not be then vacated by them; they should continue to lie therein until the jury render their verdict.

Judgment must be reversed, a new trial is ordered, with costs ■to appellant to abide event of action.

O’Dwyer and Sci-iuohman, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.
#### § 351.12 Closing the record.

To close the record of a proceeding, the presiding Judge shall make an announcement that the taking of evidence has concluded.

[71 FR 53330, Sept. 11, 2006]
IB 

Union Calendar No. 175 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2120 

[Report No. 110–273] 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to proclaim as reservation for the 

benefit of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians a parcel 

of land now held in trust by the United States for that Indian tribe. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 2, 2007 

Mr. STUPAK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

JULY 30, 2007 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on May 2, 2007] 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to proclaim as reservation for the benefit of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of 

Chippewa Indians a parcel of land now held in trust 

by the United States for that Indian tribe. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 2120 RH

1 SECTION 1. LAND TO BE PROCLAIMED RESERVATION. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi3 sion of law, the Secretary of the Interior shall proclaim as 

4 reservation for the benefit of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of 

5 Chippewa Indians the parcel of land now held in trust by 

6 the United States and having the legal description as fol7 lows: That portion of Section 19, Township 41 North, 

8 Range 3 West, Michigan Meridian, described as: All of the 

9 NW1/4SW1/4 and all of the S1/2SW1/4 Northerly of a line 

10 described as beginning 650 feet Northerly along the center11 line of Highway ‘‘Mackinac Trail’’ from the intersection of 

12 said centerline with the South Section line of Section 19, 

13 Township 41 North, Range 3 West, thence Northeasterly to 

14 the Southeast corner of the NW1/4SW1/4 of said Section, 

15 containing 65 acres, more or less (except the highway right16 of-way and easements of record). 

17 (b) APPLICABLE LAW; EFFECTIVE DATE.—The Sec18 retary’s proclamation shall be pursuant to section 7 of the 

19 Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 467) and the property shall 

20 be deemed a reservation as of April 19, 1988, for purposes 

21 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

Union Calendar No. 175 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2120 

[Report No. 110

–273] 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to proclaim 

Indian tribe. now held in trust by the United States for that Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians a parcel of land as reservation for the benefit of the Sault Ste. 

JULY 30, 2007 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
Greg	Prinkey

4590	Applecrest	Circle

Castle	Rock,	CO	80109

gprinkey@184media.com

720-221-8364

Business	Name:	184Media

Hello,

I	am	writing	to	apply	for	a	Section	333	Exemption.	Currently	I	own	and	

operate	a	model	DJI	Phantom	3	Professional	UAV	that	I	enjoy	recreationally	with	my	

10	year	old	son.	We	both	currently	own	multiple	RC	cars	and	have	enjoyed	the	

hobby. All	components	are	FCC	compliant	including	the	use	of	a	camera	capable	of	

shooting	Ultra	High-Definition	4K	video,	12	megapixel still	photos	and	a	2.5Ghz	

remote	control.

My	primary	role	for	using	a	UAV	would	be	to	supplement	my	current	

business	of	filming	for	broadcast	television,	the	resell	of	stock	video	and	

photography	as	well	as	commercial	and	residential	photos.	I	have	no	interest	in	

flying	above	the	FAA	mandated	rule	of	400ft.	in	altitude	or	within	5	miles	of	any	

airport.	All	of	the	subjects	I	wish	to	shoot	are	below	the	400ft	ceiling and	in	most	

cases	on	open	land.

Given	the	skepticism	of	the	general	public	I	also	would	like	to	educate	the	

usefulness	of	UAV’s	and	the	“good”	that	can	come	of	them	and	have	already	taken	a	

step	in	that	direction	when	I	am	flying	recreationally.	I	feel	that	“drones”	have	been	

vilified.	I	have	already	demonstrated	and	have	changed	a	negative	in	to	positive.	I	

fully	understand	the	right	of	privacy	and	do	not	intend	to	fly	in	a	heavily	populated	

area	without	verbal	and/or	written	consent	of	the	involved	individuals	or	land	and	

property	owners.

I	have	researched	and	been	able	to	demonstrate	complete	control	of	the	UAV	

in	mid-flight	as	unexpected	technical	problems	have	arrived.	The	UAV	has	the	ability	

to	maintain	exact	location	via	GPS	and	has	the	ability	to	record	flight	data	in	the	

event	of	a	technical	problem.	I’m	an	avid	user	of	social	media	groups	and	have	been	

educating	new	users	to	the	hobby	of	RC	and	UAVs.

UAV	owners	are	encourage	to	follow	a	pre-flight	checklist	that	includes	visual	

propeller	examination,	observing	battery	power	the	UAV,	remote	controller	and	

mobile	device.	I	am	also	a	proponent	of	staying	up	on	current	and	future	technology	

to	ensure	the	safe	operation	of	the	UAV.	Software	technology	is	continually	being	

updated	for	the	UAV	from	it’s	manufacturer	and	notifies	the	user	immediately	which	

fixes	bugs	that	may	cause	the	UAV	to	fly	in	an	unsafe	manner.	I	believe	in	a	non-solo	

operation	meaning	I	fly	with	a	companion	to	ensure	the	there	is	always	a	direct	

visual	on	the	UAV.
I	believe	that	safety	is	a	concern	for	firefighters	and	law	enforcement	and	I	

don’t	intend	to	use	a	UAV	in	the	vicinity	of	emergency	situation	and	plan	to	abide	by	

any	local	laws	that	have	been	set	in	place.

If	any	additional	information	is	needed	I	would	be	more	than	happy	to	supply	

and	answer	any	questions	as	to	what	role	my	UAV	will be	used	for.
###### 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.

#### § 2.69 Compliance with other laws.

When the sale or transportation of any product for which registration of a trademark is sought is regulated under an Act of Congress, the Patent and Trademark Office may make appropriate inquiry as to compliance with such Act for the sole purpose of determining lawfulness of the commerce recited in the application.

[54 FR 37592, Sept. 11, 1989]

###### 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.
exv10w1



 



     EXHIBIT 10.1


eXegenics INC.


September 9, 2003


VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY



Ronald L. Goode, Ph.D.

eXegenics Inc.

2110 Research Row

Dallas, Texas 75235


Dear Dr. Goode:


     Reference is made to the Employment Agreement dated as of March 21, 2001,
by and between you and eXegenics Inc. (the “Employment Agreement”).
Notwithstanding Section 3 of the Employment Agreement, and pursuant to Section
13.2 thereof, this letter will confirm that Section 3 of the Employment
Agreement is hereby amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows:


The employment of Executive by the Company hereunder (the EMPLOYMENT
PERIOD) shall commence on the date hereof and shall continue through and
including March 20, 2004, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the
provisions of this Agreement. The employment of Executive hereunder
shall be automatically renewed on a year-to-year basis on the same terms
and conditions as the preceding year, unless either party hereto, not
less than one hundred fifty (150) days prior to the end of the initial or
a renewal term hereof, serves notice on the other party of his or its
intention not to renew this Agreement for an additional one-year term.


     If you are in agreement with the foregoing, please so indicate by signing
in the space provided below.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Very truly yours,	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	eXegenics Inc.	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	/s/ David Riggs	 
	 	 	 	
	 
	 	 	Name:	David Riggs	 
	 	 	Title:	Chief Financial Officer	 





Accepted and Agreed:


/s/ Ronald L. Goode

Ronald L. Goode, Ph.D.

Dated: September 9, 2003



	 	 	 
	cc:	 	
McCullough, Campbell & Lane
	 	 	
Suite 4100
	 	 	
205 North Michigan Avenue
	 	 	
Chicago, Illinois 60601
	 	 	
Attention: Carl D. Liggio, Sr.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1480
THE HUNTINGTON MORTGAGE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD G. SHERMAN; TRACY O. HOBSON, Defendants - Appellees, andMORTGAGE POWER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED; JANG HOO JOO; HYUNG SON; JORGE ESTRADA; JOSE JOVEL, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-2498-AW) Submitted: January 31, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2Hansel H. Rhee, LEE & MCSHANE, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. John R. Tjaden, Silver Spring, Maryland; Kevin Karpinski, ALLEN, JOHNSON, ALEXANDER & KARP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: The Huntington Mortgage Company appeals from the district court’s order awarding summary judgment to Richard Sherman and Tracy Hobson on its claim alleging negligent misrepresentation under Maryland law. Our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the district court’s opinions discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Hobson’s motion to file a surreply brief and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. The Huntington Mortgage Co. v. Sherman , No. CA-97-2498-AW (D. Md. filed Aug. 31, 1999; entered Sept. 3, 1999; filed Mar. 14, 2000; entered Mar. 15, 2000). 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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.15
                                                                     TRANSLATION


                                Power of Attorney

I, Qi Ji, a Chinese citizen with Chinese Identification Card No. _________,
hereby irrevocably authorize Mr. Nan Peng Shen to exercise the following rights
during the term of this Power of Attorney:

Mr. Nan Peng Shen is hereby authorized to exercise on my behalf at shareholders
meetings of Beijing Chenhao Xinye Air-Ticketing Service Company Limited (the
"Company"), all the shareholder's voting rights I am entitled to under Chinese
laws and the Company's bylaws, including but not limited to the sale or transfer
of the shares I hold in the Company in part or in whole, and designate and
appoint on my behalf at the shareholders meetings of the Company, the chief
executive officer of the Company.

The aforementioned authorization shall be subject to Mr. Nan Peng Shen being an
employee of Ctrip Computer Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. ("Ctrip"). As soon as
Mr. Nan Peng Shen no longer holds any position with Ctrip, I shall withdraw the
authorization granted thereto herein, and shall designate / authorize another
employee of Ctrip to exercise all of my shareholders voting rights at
shareholders meetings of the Company.

During the valid existence of the Company, unless the Operating Agreement
jointly executed by and between Ctrip and the Company is terminated early due to
any reason, the term of this Power of Attorney shall be 10 years from the date
of execution of this Power of Attorney.

/s/ Qi Ji

September 10, 2003
AAM-13-230-E 

March 08, 2013 

 Exemption No.10719 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0106 

Mr. David Vernick 

Icon Helicopters, LLC 

2206 Palomar Airport Rd., Ste A4 

Carlsbad, CA 92011 

Dear Mr. Vernick: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated February 14, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Icon Helicopters, LLC (Icon Helicopters) for an exemption from part 120 of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow Icon 

Helicopters to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing 

program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Icon Helicopters. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two drug and alcohol testing 

programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of 
2 

safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was 

unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Icon Helicopters, LLC an exemption from 14 CFR part 

120 to the extent necessary to allow Icon Helicopters to cover its safety-sensitive employees 

under one drug and alcohol testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations 

described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Icon Helicopters are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at 

all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the same auspices of 

the Icon Helicopters part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on March 31, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
### APPENDIX I - PRODUCT LIST

EPA Registration Number: Product Name 4713 - 5 Kenya Pyrethrum Extract Refined Conce ntrate
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 208 

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to expand 

the fruit and vegetable pilot program to 5 States, including New York, 

and to include Head Start programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. SERRANO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 

Act to expand the fruit and vegetable pilot program 

to 5 States, including New York, and to include Head 

Start programs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR FRUIT AND VEGETABLE 

4 PILOT PROGRAM. 

5 Section 18(g)(1)(B) of the Richard B. Russell Na6 tional School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769(g)(1)(B)) is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘in each of 4 States (including a 

8 State’’ and inserting ‘‘or Head Start programs authorized 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 208 IH

1 under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.), in 

2 each of 5 States (including New York and a State’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Exhibit 35.1

AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.11(a) OF THE

SALE AND SERVICING AGREEMENT AND

ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

I, Paul C. Honda, do hereby certify that I am the Vice President and Assistant Secretary of American Honda Finance Corporation, a California corporation (the “Company”), and further certify on behalf of the Company in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer” and “Sponsor”) under the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of September 29, 2020 among the Servicer and Sponsor, American Honda Receivables LLC, as Seller, and Honda Auto Receivables 2020-3 Owner Trust, as follows:

(i) A review of the activities of the Servicer during the reporting period ended March 31, 2023, and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.


(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period in all material respects.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 15th day of May, 2023.



| |                                                     
| | ----------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Paul C. Honda                                   
| | Paul C. Honda                                       
| | Vice President and Assistant Secretary              
| | (senior officer in charge of the servicing function)







---
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2543

_____________________________

TERESA GRIFFIN,

Appellant,

v.

ANTHONY POLK, D.D.S.,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Gadsden County.

Francis Allman, Judge.

December 11, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, LEWIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

A. Collin Cherry of Law Office of Collin Cherry, P.L., Tallahassee,

for Appellant.

William D. Horgan and Michael J. Thomas of Pennington, P.A., 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.