alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 78.115 Suicide prevention services grant agreements. ( a ) After an applicant is selected for a suicide prevention services grant in accordance with § 78.30, VA will draft a suicide prevention services grant agreement to be executed by VA and the applicant. Upon execution of the suicide prevention services grant agreement, VA will obligate suicide prevention services grant funds to cover the amount of the approved suicide prevention services grant, subject to the availability of funding. The suicide prevention services grant agreement will provide that the grantee agrees, and will ensure that each community partner agrees, to: ( 1 ) Operate the program in accordance with the provisions of this part and the applicant's suicide prevention services grant application;
( 2 ) Comply with such other terms and conditions, including recordkeeping and reports for program monitoring and evaluation purposes, as VA may establish for purposes of carrying out SSG Fox SPGP, in an effective and efficient manner; and
( 3 ) Provide such additional information as deemed appropriate by VA.
( b ) After a grantee is selected for renewal of a suicide prevention services grant in accordance with § 78.40, VA will draft a suicide prevention services grant agreement to be executed by VA and the grantee. Upon execution of the suicide prevention services grant agreement, VA will obligate suicide prevention services grant funds to cover the amount of the approved suicide prevention services grant, subject to the availability of funding. The suicide prevention services grant agreement will contain the same provisions described in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) No funds provided under this part may be used to replace Federal, State, tribal, or local funds previously used, or designated for use, to assist eligible individuals and their families.
* Judge Motz did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1637

IKECHUKWU AFI IBRAHIM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-72-4) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 27, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, * Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ikechukwu Afi Ibrahim, Appellant Pro Se. Daryl Eugene Webb, Jr., Kimberly W. Daniel, MAYS & VALENTINE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on April 7, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on April 8, 1999. It is the date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a); Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Ikechukwi Afi Ibrahim appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Wal-Mart on Ibrahim’s claims allegingemployment discrimination. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Ibrahim v. Wal-Mart, Inc. , No. CA-98-72-4 (E.D. Va. Apr. 8, 1999). * 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 (a)



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Post-Effective Amendment
No. 3 to the Registration Statement on Form N-4 of Sun Life of Canada (U.S.)
Variable Account F (Reg. No. 333-82957) of our report dated February 10, 2000
accompanying the financial statements of the Futurity, Futurity II, Futurity
Focus and Futurity Accolade Sub-Accounts included in Sun Life of Canada
(U.S.) Variable Account F, to the incorporation by reference of our report
dated February 10, 2000 accompanying the financial statements of the Regatta,
Regatta Gold, Regatta Classic and Regatta Platinum Sub-Accounts included in
Sun Life of Canada (U.S.) Variable Account F, and to the incorporation by
reference of our report dated February 10, 2000 accompanying the statutory
financial statements of Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.), which
includes explanatory paragraphs relating to the use of statutory accounting
practices which differ from accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America, appearing in the Futurity Accolade Prospectus and
the MFS Regatta Extra Prospectus, which are part of such Registration
Statement, and to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February
10, 2000 appearing on the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sun Life Assurance
Company of Canada (U.S.) for the year ended December 31, 1999, which includes
explanatory paragraphs relating to the use of statutory accounting practices
which differ from accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America.

We also consent to the reference to us under the headings "Accountants" and
"Appendix B - Condensed Financial Information -- Accumulation Unit Values"
appearing in the Futurity Accolade Prospectus, under the heading "Accountants"
in the MFS Regatta Extra Prospectus, and under the heading "Financial
Statements" in the Statement of Additional Information relating to each
Prospectus, which are incorporated by reference in this Post-Effective
Amendment No. 3.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
June 26, 2000
§ 1006.42 Sending required disclosures. ( a ) *Sending required disclosures* — ( 1 ) *In general.* A debt collector who sends disclosures required by the Act and this part in writing or electronically must do so in a manner that is reasonably expected to provide actual notice, and in a form that the consumer may keep and access later.
( 2 ) *Exceptions.* A debt collector need not comply with paragraph (a)(1) of this section when sending the disclosure required by § 1006.6(e) or § 1006.18(e) in writing or electronically, unless the disclosure is included on a notice required by § 1006.34(a)(1)(i) or § 1006.38(c) or (d)(2).
( b ) *Requirements for certain disclosures sent electronically.* To comply with paragraph (a) of this section, a debt collector who sends the notice required by § 1006.34(a)(1)(i)(B), or the disclosures described in § 1006.38(c) or (d)(2)(i), electronically must do so in accordance with section 101(c) of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN Act) (15 U.S.C. 7001(c)).
[85 FR 76887, Nov. 30, 2020, as amended at 86 FR 5856, Jan. 19, 2021]
COMMUN S 

OPPT-2006-0621 

p. 1 

CBIC Control Number 

356678 

RECEIVED 

OPPT CaIC 

Reply To: THOMAS H. SAMPLES 2013 OCT 24 IPM I : 0 1 

EPA 

P: ;".' 04 

VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVEMCKET CENTER 

E.1 . du Pont de Nemours and Company 

Director, Risk Management 

1007 Market Street 

Wilmington, DE 19898 Scanned & Processed in 

Telephone: 302.999 .5565 " CIS by: PAULA 

Email: Thomas.H .Samplest@dunont.com 

October 31, 2013 

PUBLIC COPY- NO CBI 

OPPT Document Control Office (DCO) 

Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0621 

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW 

EPA East Building, Room 6428 

Washington, DC 20004 

Dear Sir/Madam: 

2030/15 PFOA Stewardship Program Report 

DuPont is pleased to submit Its annual report documenting our progress In meeting the 2030/15 PFOA 

Stewardship Program goals. The report describes accomplishments In 2012 against the major 

milestones set when the program was launched in January 2006. 

For 2012, DuPont has reduced its facility emissions and product content by 99% from the base years 

established for this program . DuPont is also on track to meet the second program goal to work toward 

elimination of PFOA and related chemicals by 2015. Consistent with the DuPont commitment in 2007 to 

no longer make, buy or use PFOA by 2015, or earlier If possible, DuPont ceased Its manufacture of PFOA 

In first quarter 2013. DuPont also eliminated use of PFOA in the manufacture of fluoropolymers as of 

the end of June 2013, two and a half years ahead of the EPA goal. We are on track to complete the 

conversion to alternatives for the remaining products In 2014. 

i( 

Thomas H. Samples 

COMPANY SANITIZED PUBLIC COPY OCTOBER 31, 2013
### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TE NNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Ass ig ne d o n B rie fs Octo be r 7, 2 00 8

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . WI LLI AM GLENN W IL EY

Appeal f rom the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 95-C- 1918 Walter C. K urtz, Judge

No. M2007- 01299-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Septem ber 29, 2009

D. K E L L Y T H O M A S , J R ., J ., concur ring

.

I ag ree with the maj o ri t y t h at , in spite of numerous misdeeds committed by the State, the defe ndant is not entitled to relief

. Howeve r, rules of discovery and rules of disclosure of exculpatory evidenc e exist for a re ason. They are a necessar

y part of our not ion of due pr ocess a nd ensure the

acc used an opportunity to adequa tely prepa

re fo r t rial. I f the State violates the rules, whether intentionally or neg lige ntly
, the result, even if corr ect, is tarnished. As J ustice Doug las aptly pointed
out over forty y ear s ag o, “[s] ociety wins not only when the g uilty are convicted but whe n criminal trials are fair; our sy stem of the administration of jus t i ce s u ff er s when any acc used is trea ted unfairly .” B rady

v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). Such is the c ase he rein.

The rec ord in this case reve als suppression by the State of a prior inconsistent statement made by a key State witness. I n addition, during the five-da y trial, sever al discovera

ble documents wer e delivere d to the Def

endant. Evidently
, delay ed disclosure was so commonplace that the trial court kept count of the State’s apolog ies. I note, in answe r to the trial court’s question about a discovery rule violation, the assistant district a ttorney g ener al said, “Judge

. . . I thought the repor ts ha d been provided, they wer en’t

. . ..” The repor t in question is noticeably absen t fr o m t h e State’s formal
response to the discovery motion filed with the court.

I n light o f t he streng th of the State’s evidenc e at trial, I ag ree that timely disclosure of the documents and statement in question would not have altere d the result. The prese nce of unidentified fing erpr ints a

t the scene of the crime does not chang e the fac t tha t the Def endant’ s fing erpr ints a

re

on the murder wea

pon. L ikewise, the Def endant’ s g irlfriend’ s ini t i al d en i al of knowledg e

conce rning the murder does not chang e the fac t that the Def endant admitted hitting the victim in the head with a vodka bottle and taking his money

. I t is the streng th of the State’s proof that led to the majority ’s holding that the cumulative ef fec t of the er

rors doe s not require reve rsal of the verdic t. Ag ain, I ag ree

. I f the State’s proof was less convincing
, I would conclude that the cumulative eff ectof the numerous harmless err ors require s reve rsal. As the trial court admonished the State, “This is

not a way to conduct a se rious felony trial.”

D. KEL L Y THOMAS, JR ., J UDGE
# C_2020077EN.01004201.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2020 — Lithuania v Commission

(Case T-19/18) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Lithuania - One-off and flat-rate financial corrections - Rural development - Cross-compliance control system - Administrative control - On-the-spot check - Quality of the checks - Quality of the applicants - Artificial conditions - Reasonableness of the costs - Expenditure incurred through projects - Risk analysis - Risk factors - Tolerance regarding penalties which is not provided for under EU legislation - Assessment and penalty system which is too lenient - Annual statistical control data)

(2020/C 77/60)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: R. Dzikovič, V. Vasiliauskienė, M. Palionis and A. Dapkuvienė, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sauka, A. Steiblytė and J. Jokubauskaitė, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Pavliš, O. Serdula, J. Vláčil and S. Šindelková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2017, L 292, p. 61), in so far as it provides for the imposition on the Republic of Lithuania of a financial correction of EUR 9 745 705,88 regarding expenditure connected with EAFRD and a financial correction of EUR 546 351,91 regarding expenditure connected with EAGF and EAFRD.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---
§ 1091.203 Response. ( a ) *Timing and word limit.* Within 30 days of service of a Notice, a respondent shall file any response with the Director and serve it on the initiating official, according to the instructions set forth in the Notice. The response is subject to the word limit in § 1091.403.
( b ) *Content of the response.* ( 1 ) If the respondent disputes that it is a nonbank covered person that is engaging, or has engaged, in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services, the response shall set forth the basis for the respondent's position.
( 2 ) The response shall be accompanied by appendices that include (and are limited to) all documents, records, or other evidence a respondent wishes to use to support the arguments or assertions set forth in the response.
( 3 ) If the respondent wishes to present a supplemental oral response, the response must include that request. The respondent may also include, for the Director's consideration, the respondent's preference for the supplemental oral response to be by telephone, by video conference, or in person at the Bureau's headquarters in Washington, DC. A respondent's failure to request to present a supplemental oral response shall constitute a waiver of the opportunity to present a supplemental oral response.
( 4 ) The response shall include an email address for serving documents on the respondent, which may be its attorney's email address.
( 5 ) The response shall be accompanied, as an appendix, by an affidavit or declaration, made by the individual respondent if a natural person, or, if a corporate or other entity that is not a natural person, by an officer, managing or general member, or partner authorized to represent the respondent, affirming that the response is true and accurate and does not contain any omissions that would cause the response to be materially misleading.
( c ) *Default.* If a respondent does not file a response within the time period set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, it shall constitute a waiver of the respondent's right to respond. At the initiating official's request, the Director may issue a decision and order as provided in § 1091.206(a)(1)).
( d ) *No Discovery.* There shall be no discovery in connection with a response.
§ 1203.25 Further proceedings on the application for award. ( a ) On request of either the applicant or agency counsel, on the adjudicative officer's own initiative, or as requested by the Director under § 1203.27, the adjudicative officer may order further proceedings, such as an informal conference, oral argument, additional written submissions, or, as to issues other than substantial justification (such as the applicant's eligibility or substantiation of fees and expenses), pertinent discovery or an evidential hearing. Such further proceedings will be held only when necessary for full and fair resolution of the issues arising from the application for award and will be conducted as promptly as possible. The issue as to whether the position of FHFA in the underlying adversary adjudication was substantially justified will be determined on the basis of the whole administrative record that was made in the underlying adversary adjudication.
( b ) A request that the adjudicative officer order further proceedings under this section must specifically identify the information sought on the disputed issues and must explain why the additional proceedings are necessary to resolve the issues.
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

J. MICHAEL COP AND TERESA

COP

VERSUS

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATE

OF LOUISIANA

NO. 2021 CW 1283

JANUARY 21, 2022

In Re: Department of Transportation and Development of the

State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs, 

19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton

Rouge, No. 705697. 

BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ. 

WRIT GRANTED. On review, we find the words of the act of

sale containing the compromise agreement are clear and explicit

and lead to no absurd consequences. Extrinsic evidence was thus

inadmissible to explain or to contradict the terms of that

instrument. See Ortega v. State, Department of Transportation

and Development, 96- 1322, ( La. 2/ 25/ 97), 689 So. 2d 1358, 1363. 

Based on the language of the act of sale, we find plaintiffs

fully settled all claims against defendant including their loss

of rental income claim. See Barker v. Dept. of Transp. And

Dev., 2008- 1084 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 12/ 23/ 08), 4 So. 3d 869. 

Accordingly, the August 27, 2021 judgment of the district court

denying the peremptory exception of res judicata filed by

defendant, Department of Transportation and Development of the

State of Louisiana, is reversed. The exception is hereby

granted, thereby dismissing all claims filed by plaintiffs, J. 

Michael Cop and Teresa Cop. 

JMG

GH

WRC

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPU Y C ERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 180 (Friday, September 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47929-47930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22554]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Availability for Non-Exclusive, Exclusive, or Partially Exclusive 
Licensing of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Concerning Novel Use 
and Method of Rapamycin To Treat Toxic Shock

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Announcement is made of the availability for licensing of the 
invention set forth in U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 
61/045,184 entitled ``Novel Use and Method of Rapamycin to Treat Toxic 
Shock,'' filed August 5, 2009. The United States Government, as 
represented by the Secretary of the Army, has rights to this invention.

ADDRESSES: Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, 
ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, 
Frederick, MD 21702-5012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth 
Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808. For licensing issues, Dr. Paul 
Mele, Office of Research and Technology Assessment, (301) 619-6664, 
both at telefax (301) 619-5034.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The invention relates to the use of 
Rapamycin as a treatment of toxic shock

[[Page 47930]]

induced by staphylococcal exotoxins; more specifically, staphylococcal 
enterotoxins that are potent activators for human T cells and can cause 
lethal shock.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-22554 Filed 9-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Consumer Product Safety Commission

# Time and Date:

Wednesday, September 30, 2009, 2 p.m.

# Place:

Room 714, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.

# Status:

Closed to the Public.

# Matter To Be Considered:

Compliance Weekly Report—Commission Briefing; the staff will brief the Commission on various compliance matters.

For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.

# Contact Person For More Information:

Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 504-7923.

Dated: September 23, 2009.

Todd A. Stevenson,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-23464 Filed 9-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-M