alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 76.1 Definitions. For purposes of part 76, the following definitions apply: *Disability* means a service-connected or nonservice-connected disability which meets the criteria prescribed by the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) Classification Code and International Standards, November 2007 edition, available at *http://www.paralympic.org/export/sites/default/IPC/IPC_Handbook/Section_2/2008_2_Classification_Code6.pdf ,* and qualifies the veteran for participation in a sport sanctioned by the United States Paralympics. The IPC standards are incorporated by reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, VA must publish notice of change in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. ( 1 ) You may obtain a copy from the International Paralympic Committee at International Paralympic Committee, Adenauerallee 212-214, 53113 Bonn, Germany.
( 2 ) All approved material is available for inspection at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Regulation Policy and Management (02REG), Room 1063B, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of approved materials at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .* The IPC standards are also available here: *http://www.va.gov/ABOUT_VA/docs/ParalympicClassificationCode.pdf .* (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 322(d))
*Paralympic Training Center* refers to the following locations: The United States Olympic Training Center at Chula Vista, California; the United States Olympic Training Center at Colorado Springs, Colorado; the United States Olympic Training Center at Lake Placid, New York; the Lakeshore Foundation in Birmingham, Alabama; and the University of Central Oklahoma in Edmond, Oklahoma.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 322(d))
717 A.2d 387

#### STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Joseph R. STAVELY.

No. 23,

Sept. Term, 1998.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Sept. 14, 1998.

Leonard C. Redmond, III (Redmond, Burgin & Gutierrez, P.A., on brief), Baltimore, for Petitioner.

David A. Titman, Ellicott City, for Respondent.

Argued before BELL, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, RAKER, WILNER and CATHELL, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari in the above entitled case having been granted and argued, it is this 14th day of September, 1998,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the writ of certiorari be, and it is hereby, dismissed with costs, the petition having been improvidently granted.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2374 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to expand the boundary of the 

Homestead National Monument of America, in the State of Nebraska, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 17, 2007 

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

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to expand the 

boundary of the Homestead National Monument of 

America, in the State of Nebraska, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homestead National 

5 Monument of America Boundary Expansion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior may 

8 acquire by donation or by purchase with donated or approVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:04 May 19, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2374.IH H2374

bajohnson on PRODPC74 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2374 IH

1 priated funds, from willing sellers only, the lands or inter2 ests in lands as described in subsection (b), as generally 

3 depicted on the map titled ‘‘Homestead National Monu4 ment of America Boundary’’, numbered 368/80,039, and 

5 dated April 2007. 

6 (b) LANDS DESCRIBED.—The lands referred to in 

7 subsection (a) are— 

8 (1) the approximately 140 acres located south 

9 of the Homestead National Monument and owned by 

10 the Friends of Homestead; and 

11 (2) the approximately 160 acres known as the 

12 ‘‘Graff Parcel’’. 

13 (c) BOUNDARY REVISION.—The Secretary shall re14 vise the boundary of the Homestead National Monument 

15 to reflect the acquisition upon its completion. 

16 (d) ADMINISTRATION OF ACQUIRED LANDS.—Any 

17 lands acquired under this section shall be administered by 

18 the Secretary as part of the Homestead National Monu19 ment in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PRODPC74 with BILLS
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2602 

AN ACT 

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical facility 

in Iron Mountain, Michigan, as the ‘‘Oscar G. Johnson 

Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2602 EH

1 SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

2 MEDICAL FACILITY, IRON MOUNTAIN, MICHI3 GAN. 

4 The Department of Veterans Affairs medical facility 

5 in Iron Mountain, Michigan, shall after the date of the 

6 enactment of this Act be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Oscar G. Johnson Department of Veterans Affairs Med8 ical Facility’’. Any reference to that medical facility in any 

9 law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of 

10 the United States shall be considered to be a reference 

11 to the Oscar G. Johnson Department of Veterans Affairs 

12 Medical Facility. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2602 

AN ACT 

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs medfairs Medical Facility’’. ‘‘Oscar G. Johnson Department of Veterans Af- ical facility in Iron Mountain, Michigan, as the
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SS.1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of IR BioSciences Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the periods ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John N. Fermanis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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.





IR BIOSCIENCES HOLDINGS, INC.Date: August 23, 2010
By:
/s/ John N. FermanisJohn N. FermanisChief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, an other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 17.93 Eligibility for outpatient services. ( a ) VA shall furnish on an ambulatory or outpatient basis medical services as are needed, to the following applicants under the conditions stated, except that applications for dental treatment must also meet the provisions of § 17.161. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1710, 1712)
( 1 ) *For compensation and pension examinations.* A compensation and pension examination shall be performed for any veteran who is directed to have such an examination by VA. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 111 and 501)
( 2 ) *For adjunct treatment.* Subject to the provisions of §§ 17.36 through 17.38, medical services on an ambulatory or outpatient basis shall be provided to veteans for an adjunct nonservice-connected condition associated with and held to be aggravating a disability from a disease or injury adjudicated as being service-connected.
( b ) The term “shall furnish” in this section and 38 U.S.C. 1710(a)(1) and (a)(2) means that, if the veteran is in immediate need of outpatient medical services, VA shall furnish care at the VA facility where the veteran applies. If the needed medical services are not available there, VA shall arrange for care at the nearest VA medical facility or Department of Defense facility (with which VA has a sharing agreement) that can provide the needed care. If VA and Department of Defense facilities are not available, VA shall arrange for care on a fee basis, but only if the veteran is eligible to receive medical services in non-VA facilities under § 17.52. If the veteran is not in immediate need of outpatient medical services, VA shall schedule the veteran for care where the veteran applied, if the schedule there permits, or refer the veteran for scheduling to the nearest VA medical center or Department of Defense facility (with which VA has a sharing agreement).
( c ) VA may furnish on an ambulatory or outpatient basis medical services as needed to the following applicants, except that applications for dental treatment must also meet the provisions of § 17.123. ( 1 ) *For veterans participating in a rehabilitation program under 38 U.S.C. chapter 31 .* Medical services on an ambulatory or outpatient basis may be provided as determined medically necessary for a veteran participating in a rehabilitation program under 38 U.S.C. chapter 31 as defined in § 17.47(i).
( 2 ) [Reserved]
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1710, 1712)
[55 FR 20150, May 15, 1990, as amended at 58 FR 25565, Apr. 27, 1993. Redesignated and amended at 61 FR 21965, 21967, May 13, 1996; 64 FR 54218, Oct. 6, 1999; 79 FR 54615, Sept. 12, 2014]
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 08615

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name Description

08615\08615_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

08615\08615_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 08615\08615_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08615\08615_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08615\08615_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08615\08615_PlantID_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

x 08615\Supporting Documents\08615_A5_Q2_Aerial-MAP-1_Rev2_30Aug2010.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 08615\Supporting Documents\08615_A5_Q3_WaterBalanceDiagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08615\Supporting Documents\08615_CertificationStatement.pdf Plant certification statement

08615\Supporting Documents\08615_CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
§ 1026.29 State exemptions. ( a ) *General rule.* Any state may apply to the Bureau to exempt a class of transactions within the state from the requirements of chapter 2 (Credit transactions) or chapter 4 (Credit billing) of the Act and the corresponding provisions of this part. The Bureau shall grant an exemption if it determines that: ( 1 ) The state law is substantially similar to the Federal law or, in the case of chapter 4, affords the consumer greater protection than the Federal law; and
( 2 ) There is adequate provision for enforcement.
( b ) *Civil liability.* ( 1 ) No exemptions granted under this section shall extend to the civil liability provisions of sections 130 and 131 of the Act.
( 2 ) If an exemption has been granted, the disclosures required by the applicable state law (except any additional requirements not imposed by Federal law) shall constitute the disclosures required by the Act.
( c ) *Applications.* The procedures under which a state may apply for an exemption under this section are set forth in appendix B to this part.
#### § 8.22 Examination of applicants for insurance or reinstatement.

Where physical or mental examination is required of an applicant for National Service Life Insurance or of an applicant for reinstatement of National Service Life Insurance, such examination may be made by a medical officer of the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, or Public Health Service, or may be made free of charge to him or her by a full-time or part-time salaried physician or a physician's assistant at a regional office or medical facility of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Such examination may also be made, at the applicant's own expense, by a physician duly licensed for the practice of medicine by a State, possession of the United States, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, or by a duly licensed osteopathic physician who is a graduate of a recognized and approved college of osteopathy and who is listed in the current directory of the American Osteopathic Association. Such examination may be made by a physician or osteopath who is not related to the applicant by blood or marriage, associated with him or her in business, or pecuniarily interested in the insurance or reinstatement of the policy. Examinations made in a foreign country by a physician duly licensed for the practice of medicine and otherwise acceptable may be accepted if submitted through the American consul. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may require such further medical examination or additional medical evidence as may be deemed necessary and proper to establish the physical and mental condition of the applicant at the time of the application.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1904 and 1905)

[30 FR 3650, Mar. 19, 1965, as amended at 47 FR 11659, Mar. 18, 1982. Redesignated and amended at 61 FR 29290, 29293, June 10, 1996. Redesignated at 65 FR 7437, Feb. 15, 2000]
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

FRANCISCO TARANGO and

SARA TARANGO,

 Appellants,

v.

JAIME CHONG,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-09-00290-CV

Appeal from

 County Court at Law No. 5

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2009-J00077)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion for determination whether the appeal

should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Finding that Appellants have not filed a brief or a

1

motion for extension of time, we dismiss the appeal.

On February 23, 2010, the Clerk of the Court notified Appellants that their brief was past due

and no motion for extension of time had been received. The Clerk also informed the parties of the

Court’s intent to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within ten days of the notice, a

party responded showing grounds to continue the appeal. No response has been received as of this

date.

This Court possesses the authority to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution when the

appellant has failed to file his brief in the time prescribed, and gives no reasonable explanation for

such failure. TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(a)(1); Elizondo v. City of San Antonio, 975 S.W.2d 61, 63

(Tex.App.--San Antonio 1998, no writ). We have given notice of our intent to dismiss the appeal

 Appellant, Sara Tarango, is also referred to in the clerk’s record as Sara Soto.

1
and requested a response if a reasonable basis for failure to file the brief or statement of facts exists,

but we have received no response. We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution pursuant to

TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(c).

April 22, 2010 

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.
June 30, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ERIC L. BAUMGART, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00310-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from The Cosmetic
Center, Inc.'s March 28, 1998 financial statements and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1998
<CASH>                                          $2,586
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,690
<ALLOWANCES>                                         2
<INVENTORY>                                     85,633
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,035
<PP&E>                                          24,408
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,983)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 111,876
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,808
<BONDS>                                         56,255
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,853
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   111,876
<SALES>                                         37,916
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,916
<CGS>                                           28,796
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,796
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,586
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,311
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,777)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,777)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,777)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  $(0.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  $(0.58)
        


</TABLE>
EX-10.5



 Exhibit 10.5 

DEGOLYER AND MACNAUGHTON 

5001 SPRING VALLEY ROAD 

SUITE 800 EAST 

DALLAS, TEXAS 75244 

April 22, 2015 
 Mtro. Emilio R. Lozoya
Austin 
 Director General 
 Petróleos Mexicanos 

Avenida Marina Nacional No. 329 
 Torre Ejecutiva, Piso 44

 Colonia Petróleos Mexicanos 
 11311 México,
D.F. México 
 Dear Mtro. Lozoya Austin: 

We hereby consent to the references to DeGolyer and MacNaughton as set forth under the headings “Presentation of Information Concerning
Reserves,” “Item 4. Information on the Company–Business Overview–Exploration and Production–Reserves,” and “Item 19. Exhibits. Documents filed as exhibits to this Form 20-F” in the Annual Report on Form
20-F of Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the Form 20-F), and to the filing as Exhibit 10.6 to the Form 20-F of our third-party report dated March 31, 2015, describing our review of the estimates of
proved oil and condensate, natural gas liquids, sales-gas, and total liquids-equivalent reserves that PEMEX has represented are owned by the United Mexican States (Mexico) as of January 1, 2015, for certain fields located offshore of Mexico in
the Southwest Marine Region, which includes reserves that PEMEX has represented that it has the right to extract and sell. These estimates were prepared in accordance with the reserves definitions of Rules 4-10(a)
(l)-(32) of Regulation S-X of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. 
  

	
	Very truly yours,
	
	




	DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON
	Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-716
#### SANFORD & BROOKS COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES

[58 C. Cls. 158; 267 U. S. 455]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, the Supreme Court deciding:

1. Where a Government contract for dredging expressly required prompt, written protest against any order for work outside the specifications, written modification of the contract if altered materially, and written orders for extra work, *held*that oral protests by the contractor, a claim for additional compensation and a favorable advisory opinion thereon by a Government official, were insufficient to establish that these contract provisions were inapplicable or waived, or that a new, oral agreement for compensation *quantum, meruit*was substituted by implication.

*1025March 9, 1925.

2. A motion to remand to tlie Court of Claims for further findings should be submitted at the first term of the entry of the case so that the court may determine whether the motion shall be passed upon in advance or postponed until the hearing on the merits.

Mr. Justice BeaNdeis

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court
#### § 62.51 Payments under the supportive services grant.

Grantees are to be paid in accordance with the timeframes and manner set forth in the Notice of Fund Availability.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2044)
#### § 7.8 Beneficiary or assignee.

The consent of a beneficiary, assignee, or any other person who may have a right or interest in the proceeds of the policy is not a prerequisite for placing a policy under the protection of the Act.

[61 FR 29026, June 7, 1996]
42050.

#### TANNER v. THE STATE.

*36Argued June 8, 1966

Decided June 16, 1966

Rehearing denied July 6, 1966

*Larry Cohran,*for appellant.

*Bichard Bell, Solicitor General, Dennis F. Jones, Assistant Solicitor General,*for appellee.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The first enumeration of error complains that the trial court erred in failing to hear and grant his motion to suppress certain evidence. Under the decisions in *Jackson v. State,*108 Ga. App. 529 (133 SE2d 436), and *Green*
      *37
      *v. State,*110 Ga. App. 346 (138 SE2d 589), such action by the trial court was not error.

Enumerations of error numbered 2, 3 and 5 all deal with the admission in evidence of the items found in the defendant’s automobile and the written confession made by the defendant after his arrest.

When the defendant was first seen he was not stopped and it was only after he drove back over the same road approximately five minutes later and then drove his automobile behind two business establishments that were closed that he was stopped by the police officers, and there is no contention made that the officers did not have authority to check his driver’s license although it is contended that the above amounted to an arrest. Such action did not amount to an arrest; however, had the defendant refused to exhibit his driver’s license when requested to do so this would itself have been a crime. See Ga. L. 1937, pp. 322, 347; Ga. L. 1951, pp. 598, 601 *(Code Ann.*§ 92A-9906).

While lawfully examining the defendant’s driver’s license the officers saw tools commonly used to commit burglaries inside the vehicle and the arrest which then took place was lawful. See *Richardson v. State,*113 Ga. App. 163 (146 SE2d 653); *Barron v. State,*109 Ga. App. 786 (137 SE2d 690). After the lawful arrest the defendant gave the officers permission to examine the automobile more closely and the fruits of a burglary were found as well as the .38 caliber pistol, and the confession later freely and voluntarily made was admissible. See *Sims v. State,*221 Ga. 190 (144 SE2d 103).

The sole remaining enumeration of error complains that the trial court expressed an opinion during the trial of the case in violation of the provisions of *Code*§ 84-1104. No objection or motion for mistrial was made on the trial of the case and the first time the defendant sought to complain was in the amended motion for new trial. No question is presented for decision by such enumeration of error. See *Calhoun v. State,*210 Ga. 180 (3) (78 SE2d 425); *Shepherd v. State,*203 Ga. 635 (2) (47 SE2d 860), and citations.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.*