alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 18b.37 Disposition of motions and petitions.

The reviewing authority or the presiding officer may not sustain or grant a written motion or petition prior to expiration of the time for filing responses thereto, but may overrule or deny such motion or petition without awaiting response: *Provided, however,* That prehearing conferences, hearings and decisions need not be delayed pending disposition of motions or petitions. Oral motions and petitions may be ruled on immediately. Motions and petitions submitted to the reviewing authority or the presiding officer, respectively, and not disposed of in separate rulings or in their respective decisions will be deemed denied. Oral arguments shall not be held on written motions or petitions unless the presiding officer in the officer's discretion expressly so orders.

[35 FR 10760, July 2, 1970, as amended at 51 FR 10386, Mar. 26, 1986]
# Official Journal C 91/15 A

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 91 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4815 April 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 91

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4815 April 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 091/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2005/C 091/2 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3794 — PAI/FTE) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 2 |
| 2005/C 091/3 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3708 — Apollo/Directv/Hughes Network Systems) (1) | 3 |
| | European Central Bank |
| 2005/C 091/4 | Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 7 April 2005 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Bank of Greece (ECB/2005/7) | 4 |
| 2005/C 091/5 | Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 7 April 2005 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Nationale Bank van België/Banque Nationale de Belgique (ECB/2005/8) | 5 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 091/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2005/C 091/2

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3794 — PAI/FTE) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

2

2005/C 091/3

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3708 — Apollo/Directv/Hughes Network Systems) (1)

3

European Central Bank

2005/C 091/4

Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 7 April 2005 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Bank of Greece (ECB/2005/7)

4

2005/C 091/5

Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 7 April 2005 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Nationale Bank van België/Banque Nationale de Belgique (ECB/2005/8)

5

---

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 091/6 | Call for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘structuring the European Research Area’ — Call identifier: FP6-2005-INNOV-8 | 6 |

III   Notices

Commission

2005/C 091/6

Call for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘structuring the European Research Area’ — Call identifier: FP6-2005-INNOV-8

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
§ 61.51 Technical assistance grants—application packages. ( a ) To apply for a technical assistance grant, an applicant must obtain from VA, complete, and submit to VA a technical assistance grant application package within the time period established in the Notice of Fund Availability.
( b ) The technical assistance grant application package will require the following: ( 1 ) Documentation on eligibility to receive a technical assistance grant under this part;
( 2 ) A description of technical assistance that would be provided (see § 61.50);
( 3 ) Documentation concerning the estimated operating costs and operating budget for the technical assistance program for which the grant is sought;
( 4 ) Documentation concerning expertise in preparing grant applications;
( 5 ) Documentation of resources committed to the provision of technical expertise;
( 6 ) Comments or recommendations by appropriate state (and area wide) clearinghouses pursuant to E.O. 12372 (3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 197), if the applicant is a state; and
( 7 ) Reasonable assurances that: ( i ) The recipient will provide adequate financial and administrative support for providing the services set forth in the technical assistance grant application, and will actually provide such services; and
( ii ) The recipient will keep records and timely submit reports as required by VA, and will give VA, on demand, access to the records upon which such reports are based.
(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control number 2900-0554) (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2064)
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 27, 2013

NO. 03-11-00802-CV

Southwest Pharmacy Solutions, Inc. d/b/a American Pharmacies, Appellant

v.

Texas Health and Human Services Commission; and Kyle Janek,

solely in his official Capacity as Executive Commissioner of the

Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Appellees

APPEAL FROM 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND HENSON;

JUSTICE HENSON NOT PARTICIPATING

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the district court’s 

judgment: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that the judgment of the 

district court is in all things affirmed. It is FURTHER ordered that the appellant pay all costs 

relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below; and that this decision be certified 

below for observance.
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.217 Submission of statements or information affecting entitlement to benefits. ( a ) For purposes of this part, unless specifically provided otherwise, the submission of information or a statement that affects entitlement to benefits by e-mail, facsimile, or other written electronic means, will satisfy a requirement or authorization that the statement or information be submitted in writing. Note to paragraph ( a
):
Section 3.217(a) merely concerns the submission of information or a statement in writing. Other requirements specified in this part, such as a requirement to use a specific form, to provide specific information, to provide a signature, or to provide a certified statement, must still be met.
( b ) For purposes of this part, unless specifically provided otherwise, VA may take action affecting entitlement to benefits based on oral or written information or statements provided to VA by a beneficiary or his or her fiduciary. However, VA may not take action based on oral information or statements unless the VA employee receiving the information meets the following conditions: ( 1 ) During the conversation in which the information or statement is provided, the VA employee: ( i ) Identifies himself or herself as a VA employee who is authorized to receive the information or statement (these are VA employees authorized to take actions under §§ 2.3 or 3.100 of this chapter);
( ii ) Verifies the identity of the provider as either the beneficiary or his or her fiduciary by obtaining specific information about the beneficiary that can be verified from the beneficiary's VA records, such as Social Security number, date of birth, branch of military service, dates of military service, or other information; and
( iii ) Informs the provider that the information or statement will be used for the purpose of calculating benefit amounts; and
( 2 ) During or following the conversation in which the information or statement is provided, the VA employee documents in the beneficiary's VA records the specific information or statement provided, the date such information or statement was provided, the identity of the provider, the steps taken to verify the identity of the provider as being either the beneficiary or his or her fiduciary, and that he or she informed the provider that the information would be used for the purpose of calculating benefit amounts.
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1115, 1506, 5104.
[66 FR 56614, Nov. 9, 2001]
EXHIBIT 32.1
                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                    18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
         SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     In  connection  with the Quarterly Report of Research
Frontiers Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert L. Saxe, Chairman of the Board and Chief  Executive
Officer of the Company, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

1.   The Report fully complies with the  requirements of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d), of the Securities Exchange Act of
     1934; and

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


/s/ Robert L. Saxe
    Robert L. Saxe
    Chairman of the Board
    and Chief Executive Officer
    August 9, 2004
§ 21.82 Completing the plan under Chapter 31. ( a ) *Serious employment handicap.* Each plan for a veteran with a serious employment handicap shall provide for completion of the program provided by the plan under Chapter 31. The provisions of § 21.70 and § 21.78(c) are designed to enable a veteran with a serious employment handicap to pursue and complete a rehabilitation plan under Department of Veterans Affairs auspices. These provisions shall be used as necessary to accomplish the goals of the plan. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3105(c), 3107)
( b ) *Employment handicap.* A plan for a veteran with an employment handicap that is not a serious employment handicap shall require that the program be completed within 48 months, if the veteran is not eligible for an extension as provided in § 21.78. When the program provided by the plan cannot be completed under Chapter 31 because of limitations imposed by the veteran's termination date or months of remaining entitlement, realistic, comprehensive and detailed arrangements must be made which will enable the veteran to successfully complete training under other auspices. If an arrangement cannot be made which meets these requirements, the long-range vocational goal of the veteran must be reevaluated, and another vocational goal selected which can be completed using the veteran's remaining Chapter 31 resources. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3107(a))
( c ) *Employment assistance when training is not completed under Chapter 31.* A plan for employment assistance may be implemented even though the veteran's training has not been or will not be completed under Chapter 31.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3117(a))
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                         5
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                      Sep-30-1998
<CASH>                            1,661,983
<SECURITIES>                      000
<RECEIVABLES>                     000
<ALLOWANCES>                      000
<INVENTORY>                       000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  1,661,983
<PP&E>                            000
<DEPRECIATION>                    000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    1,661,983
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             1,597,550
<BONDS>                           000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             000
<PREFERRED>                       000
<COMMON>                          000
<OTHER-SE>                        64,433
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      1,661,983
<SALES>                           000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  128,508
<CGS>                             000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  368,728
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (240,220)
<INCOME-TAX>                      000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (240,220)
<DISCONTINUED>                    000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   000
<CHANGES>                         000
<NET-INCOME>                      (240,220)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     (6.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                     (6.97)
        

</TABLE>
Filed: April 17, 1996

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7522

(CA-93-1424-AM)

Lorenzo A. Scorpio,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

Julia Foster-Woodson, etc., et al,

Defendants - Appellees.

ORDER

The Court amends its opinion filed April 4, 1996, as follows:

On the cover sheet, section 5 -- the panel information is

corrected to read "Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge."

For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Bert M. Montague

Clerk
2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7522

LORENZO A. SCORPIO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JULIA FOSTER-WOODSON, Institutional Case

Manager, Nottoway Penitentiary; CLARENCE L.

JACKSON, Chairman of the Board, Virginia Board

of Parole; EDWARD W. MURRAY, Director, Department of Corrections of Virginia; YVETTE KING,

Substance Abuse Counselor; GEORGE LACKS, Correctional Officer; E. DAVIS, Rec. Dept. Supervisor; R. BUTLER, Rec. Dept. Supervisor; S. V.

JONES, Corporal,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District

Judge. (CA-93-1424-AM)

Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 4, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenzo A. Scorpio, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Campbell Alexander,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
4

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his motion to alter or amend the judgment denying relief in

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district

court. Scorpio v. Foster-Woodson, No. CA-93-1424-AM (E.D. Va. Aug.

18, 1995). To the extent that the Religious Freedom Restoration

Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000bb to 2000bb-4 (West 1994), might apply to

Appellant's action, Appellees are entitled to immunity. See Harlow

v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815-16 (1982) (public officials are

free from liability for monetary damages if they can plead and

prove that their conduct did not violate clearly established

statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

would have known). 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
§ 21.8370 Authorization of transportation services. ( a ) *General.* VA authorizes transportation services necessary for an eligible child to pursue a vocational training program. The sections in subpart A of this part that are referred to in this paragraph apply to children under this subpart in a manner comparable to the way they apply to veterans under the 38 U.S.C. chapter 31 program. Transportation services include: ( 1 ) Transportation for evaluation or counseling under § 21.376;
( 2 ) Intraregional travel under § 21.370 (except that assurance that the child meets all basic requirements for induction into training will be determined without regard to the provisions of § 21.282) and interregional travel under § 21.372;
( 3 ) Special transportation allowance under § 21.154; and
( 4 ) Commuting to and from training and while seeking employment, subject to paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1804(c), 1814)
( b ) *Reimbursement.* For transportation services that VA authorizes, VA will normally pay in arrears and in the same manner as tuition, fees, and other services under this program. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1804(c), 1814)
( c ) *Payment for commuting expenses for training and seeking employment.* VA may pay for transportation during the period of vocational training and the first 3 months the child receives employment services. VA may reimburse the child's costs, not to exceed $200 per month, of commuting to and from training and seeking employment if he or she requests this assistance and VA determines, after careful examination of the child's situation and subject to the limitations in paragraph (d) of this section, that the child would be unable to pursue training or employment without this assistance. VA may: ( 1 ) Reimburse the facility at which the child is training if the facility provided transportation or related services; or
( 2 ) Reimburse the child for his or her actual commuting expense if the child paid for the transportation. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1804(c), 1814)
( d ) *Limitations.* Payment of commuting expenses under paragraph (a)(4) of this section may not be made for any period when the child: ( 1 ) Is gainfully employed;
( 2 ) Is eligible for, and entitled to, payment of commuting costs through other VA and non-VA programs; or
( 3 ) Can commute to school with family, friends, or fellow students. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1804(c), 1814)
( e ) *Documentation.* VA must receive supportive documentation with each request for reimbursement. The individualized written plan of vocational rehabilitation will specify whether VA will pay monthly or at a longer interval. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1804(c), 1814)
( f ) *Nonduplication.* If a child is eligible for reimbursement of transportation services both under this section and under § 21.154, the child will receive only the benefit under § 21.154.
(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control number 2900-0580) (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1804(c), 1814)
#### § 16.122 Use of Federal funds.

Federal funds administered by a Federal department or agency may not be expended for research involving human subjects unless the requirements of this policy have been satisfied.
#### § 93.224 Research record.

*Research record* means the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry, including but not limited to, research proposals, laboratory records, both physical and electronic, progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal reports, journal articles, and any documents and materials provided to HHS or an institutional official by a respondent in the course of the research misconduct proceeding.
§ 48.300 What must I do to comply with this part if I am an individual recipient? As a condition of receiving a(n) Department of Veterans Affairs award, if you are an individual recipient, you must agree that— ( a ) You will not engage in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance in conducting any activity related to the award; and
( b ) If you are convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any award activity, you will report the conviction: ( 1 ) In writing.
( 2 ) Within 10 calendar days of the conviction.
( 3 ) To the Department of Veterans Affairs awarding official or other designee for each award that you currently have, unless § 48.301 or the award document designates a central point for the receipt of the notices. When notice is made to a central point, it must include the identification number(s) of each affected award.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ALEXANDER ATTEBERRY

, Appellant,

v.

PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 1607

[ March 23, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Jeffrey R. Levenson , Judge ; L.T. Case No. CACE20

- 015863

.

Luke T. Moreau of Law Offices of Luke T. Moreau, Esq., Hollywood, for

appellant.

Alyssa M. Reiter and Ethan A. Arthur of Wicker Smith O’Hara McCoy

& Ford, P.A., Fort Lauderdale , for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

G ROSS

, C ONNER and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
41690.

#### MONS et al. v. REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION.

Argued January 3, 1966

Decided February 18, 1966.

*Thomas M. Odom, Freeman D. Mitchell, Jay Carroll Cox,*for appellants.

Franicum, Judge.

Where, in a suit brought under the provisions of former *Code*§ 96-307 (1), to recover damages on account of the alleged breach of an implied warranty of merchantability and suitability to the use intended of four-inch stanard galvanized pipe alleged to have been manufactured by the defendant, the petition as amended alleged “that there was no warning on said pipe that said pipe was not intended for said use,” where the term “said use” was shown by other allegations of the petition to be for drilling wells, and where it was not alleged that said pipe was manufactured by the defendant with the intention that it be used for drilling wells, the mere allegation that the defendant knew of the plaintiff’s intention to use it for that purpose, if not a mere conclusion under the facts otherwise alleged which showed that it was not purchased from the defendant but from an independent dealer, was insufficient to impose upon the defendant the burden of an implied warranty for such use. “Use intended,” as used in the Code section relied upon, means not the particular use intended by the purchaser, even though known to the seller, but means only such uses as the article may have been manufactured for by the manufacturer. *Love v. Nixon,*82 Ga. App. 445, 453 (61 SE2d 423), and cases therein cited. And see also *Atlanta Tallow Co. v. J. W. Eshelman & Sons,*110 Ga. App. 737, 742 (140 SE2d 118). The petition here failed to set forth a cause of action, and the trial court properly sustained the general demurrer and dismissed the petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Pannell, J., conmr.*

*136*Jones, Bird & Howell, Earle B. May, Jr., Trammell E. Vickery,*for appellee.
§ 63.3 Eligible veterans. ( a ) *Eligibility.* In order to serve as the basis for a per diem payment through the HCHV program, a veteran served by the non-VA community-based provider must be: ( 1 ) Enrolled in the VA health care system, or eligible for VA health care under 38 CFR 17.36 or 17.37; and
( 2 ) Homeless.
( b ) *Priority veterans.* In allocating HCHV program resources, VA will give priority to veterans, in the following order, who: ( 1 ) Are new to the VA health care system as a result of VA outreach efforts, and to those referred to VA by community agencies that primarily serve the homeless population, such as shelters, homeless day centers, and soup kitchens.
( 2 ) Have service-connected disabilities.
( 3 ) All other veterans.
( c ) VA will refer a veteran to a non-VA community-based provider after VA determines the veteran's eligibility and priority.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2031)
[76 FR 52578, Aug. 23, 2011, as amended at 80 FR 24821, May 1, 2015]