alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1222.26 Information to be presented to the Appraisal Subcommittee by participating States.

Each State electing to register AMCs for purposes of permitting AMCs to provide appraisal management services relating to covered transactions in the State must submit to the Appraisal Subcommittee the information required to be submitted by Appraisal Subcommittee regulations or guidance concerning AMCs that operate in the State.
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 7, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 51658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24096]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

Open Meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (Including the 
States of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, 
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be 
conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, 
ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal 
Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, November 3, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janice Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or 
206-220-6098.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held 
Tuesday, November 3, 2009, at 1 p.m. Pacific Time via telephone 
conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit 
written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, 
notification of intent to participate must be made with Janice Spinks. 
For more information please contact Ms. Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or 
206-220-6098, or write TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, 
WA 98174 or post comments to the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: October 1, 2009.
Shawn F. Collins,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E9-24096 Filed 10-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
```
Home2022 Certificates of Competency for Nominees to be Chiefs of Mission...Sabet, Bijan – Czech Republic – August 2022

# 									Sabet, Bijan – Czech Republic – August 2022							

Certificate of Competency

August 17, 2022

UNITED STATES SENATE

SUBJECT: Ambassadorial Nomination: Certificate ofDemonstrated Competence — Foreign ServiceAct, Section 304(a)(4)

POST: Czech Republic

CANDIDATE: Bijan Sabet

Bijan Sabet is the Co-founder, and is a General Partner, of Spark Capital, a venture capital firm that seeks out exceptional founders and the products they design. Throughout his career Mr. Sabet has focused on helping technology entrepreneurs reach their potential and build important global companies. Prior to co-founding Spark Capital in 2005, he worked as a senior executive in numerous technology startup companies in Silicon Valley, California and in Massachusetts.

In his role at Spark Capital, Mr. Sabet has led investments and served on the board of directors at early-stage startup companies that have transformed into global leaders. He led Spark’s investment in Twitter in 2007 when there were just ten employees at the young San Francisco based startup. Spark has led early-stage investments in other iconic companies including Wayfair, Cruise Automotive, Oculus, Slack, Tumblr, Warby Parker, Discord, Stack Overflow and others that have led to the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs. As a passionate advocate for education, he serves on the Board of Trustees of Boston College, from which he earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in 1991. He also serves as a Board Trustee at Beaver Country Day School in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts and St. Mark’s School in Southborough, Massachusetts.

The son of immigrant parents, Mr. Sabet’s career has been guided by a commitment to the values of equality, opportunity and respect for civil liberties that are the heart of the immigrant story. Those values, coupled with his demonstrated success in helping to build companies with a global reach, and his keen understanding of the role of technology in a rapidly changing world, combine to make him a well a well-qualified candidate to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic.

Back to Top
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-40,355-04

EX P ARTE RONALD WAYNE HARRISON, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 4205 IN THE 271 DISTRICT COURT ST F ROM JACK

COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of indece ncy with a child by contac t and sentenc ed to life imprisonment. After a remand and a li ve hearing , the trial court made findings of fac t and con cl u s i o n s of law addre ssing Applicant’s claims raised in both his orig inal writ application and an amende d writ application. We agree that Appl i cant is not entitled to relief

. Howeve r, we decline to adopt conclusion of law 30. Ba sed on the trial court’s other finding s and this Court’s independe nt revie w of the entire rec ord, we deny relief on Applicant’s actua l innocenc e and Brady claims. The rema inder2

of Applica

nt’s claims aredismiss ed. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07 § 4.

Filed: June 8, 2016 Do not publish
§ 79.85 Visits to monitor operations and compliance. ( a ) VA has the right, at all reasonable times, to make visits to all grantee locations where a grantee is using legal services grant funds in order to review grantee accomplishments and management control systems and to provide such technical assistance as may be required. VA may conduct inspections of all program locations and records of a grantee at such times as are deemed necessary to determine compliance with the provisions of this part. If a grantee delivers services in a participant's home, or at a location away from the grantee's place of business, VA may accompany the grantee. If the grantee's visit is to the participant's home, VA will only accompany the grantee with the consent of the participant. If any visit is made by VA on the premises of the grantee or a subcontractor under the legal services grant, the grantee must provide, and must require its subcontractors to provide, all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of the VA representatives in the performance of their duties. All visits and evaluations will be performed in such a manner as will not unduly delay services.
( b ) The authority to inspect carries with it no authority over the management or control of any applicant or grantee under this part.
HLD-004 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 22-2439

___________

IN RE: LAQUON TERRANCE ROBINSON,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(Related to W.D. Pa. Crim. No. 2-06-cr-00318-001) 

____________________________________ 

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. 

November 10, 2022 

Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed February 2, 2023 ) 

_________ 

OPINION*

_________ 

PER CURIAM 

Laquan Robinson petitions pro se for a writ of mandamus, requesting that we 

compel the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to rule 

on motions for compassionate release that he filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

constitute binding precedent.
2

He has also filed a supplemental petition reiterating that request. By order entered 

December 9, 2022, the District Court denied his motions for compassionate release. 

In light of the District Court’s action, Robinson’s mandamus petition no longer 

presents a live controversy. We will accordingly dismiss his petition and supplemental 

petition as moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698–99 (3d Cir. 

1996) (“If developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a 

plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to 

grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”).
1B 

Union Calendar No. 276

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2728

[Report No. 108–487] 

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for 

adjudicative flexibility with regard to an employer filing of a notice 

of contest following the issuance of a citation by the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 15, 2003

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

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

MAY 13, 2004

Additional sponsors: Mr. BOEHNER, Mrs. BIGGERT, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr. 

HOEKSTRA, Mr. KELLER, Mr. KLINE, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. ISAKSON, 

Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. SCHROCK, Mr. AKIN, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. CHOCOLA, 

Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. BEAUPREZ, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. 

DEMINT, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of 

Texas, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. PAUL, Mr. 

OTTER, and Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina 

MAY 13, 2004

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

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

[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic] 

A BILL

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

to provide for adjudicative flexibility with regard to an 
2

•HR 2728 RH 

employer filing of a notice of contest following the 

issuance of a citation by the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration.

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 ‘‘Occupational Safety 

5 and Health Small Business Day in Court Act of 2003 

6 2004’’. 

7 SEC. 2. CONTESTING CITATIONS UNDER THE OCCUPA8 TIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT. 

9 (a) CITATION.—The second sentence of section 10(a) 

10 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 

11 U.S.C. 659(a)) is amended by inserting ‘‘(unless such fail12 ure results from mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excus13 able neglect)’’ after ‘‘assessment of penalty’’. 

14 (b) FAILURE TO CORRECT.—The second sentence of 

15 section 10(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 

16 of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 659(b)) is amended by inserting ‘‘(un17 less such failure results from mistake, inadvertence, sur18 prise, or excusable neglect)’’ after ‘‘assessment of pen19 alty’’. 

Union Calendar No. 276

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2728

[Report No. 108–487] 

A BILL

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act 

pational Safety and Health Administration. following the issuance of a citation by the Occuregard to an employer filing of a notice of contest of 1970 to provide for adjudicative flexibility with 

MAY 13, 2004

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
Editorial Note on Part 1102
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part appear at 83 FR 43739, Aug. 28, 2018.

§ 1102.38 Compliance activities. ( a ) Where, from complaints received from members of the public, communications from Federal or State agencies, examination of information by the ASC, or otherwise, it appears that a person has violated, is violating or is about to violate title XI of FIRREA or the rules or regulations thereunder, the ASC staff may commence an informal, preliminary inquiry into the matter. If, upon such inquiry, it appears that one or more allegations relate to possible violations of regulations administered by another agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government, then the matter shall be referred to that agency or instrumentality for appropriate action. The ASC, pursuant to its responsibilities under section 1103(a)(2) of title XI (12 U.S.C. 3332(a)(2)) and section 1119(c) of title XI (12 U.S.C. 3348)), shall monitor the matter. If, upon inquiry, it appears that one or more allegations are within the ASC's jurisdiction, then the ASC, in its discretion, may determine to commence a formal investigation respecting the matter and shall instruct the Secretary to create a public file for the formal investigation. The Secretary shall place in that file a memorandum naming the person or persons subject to the investigation and the statutory basis for the investigation.
( b ) Unless otherwise instructed by the ASC or required by law, the Secretary shall ensure that all other papers, documents and materials gathered or submitted in connection with the investigation are non-public and for ASC use only.
( c ) Persons who become involved in preliminary inquiries or formal investigations may, on their own initiative, submit a written statement to the Secretary setting forth their interests, positions or views regarding the subject matter of the investigation. Upon request, the staff, in its discretion, may advise such persons of the general nature of the investigation, including the indicated violations as they pertain to them and the amount of time that may be available for preparing and submitting such a statement prior to the presentation of a staff recommendation to the ASC. Upon the commencement of a formal investigation or a proceeding under this subpart, the Secretary shall place any such statement in the appropriate public file.
( d ) In instances where the staff has concluded its inquiry of a particular matter and has determined that it will not recommend the commencement of a formal investigation or a proceeding under this subpart against a person, the staff shall advise the person that its inquiry has been terminated. Such advice, if given, must in no way be construed as indicating that the person has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result from the staff's inquiry into the particular matter.
#### § 1238.6 Post-assessment actions by the Enterprises.

Each Enterprise shall take the results of the stress test conducted under § 1238.3 into account in making changes, as appropriate, to the Enterprise's capital structure (including the level and composition of capital); its exposures, concentrations, and risk positions; any plans for recovery and resolution; and to improve overall risk management. If an Enterprise is under FHFA conservatorship, any post-assessment actions shall require prior FHFA approval.

[85 FR 16530, Mar. 24, 2020]
# STATE OF LOUISIANA



# COURTOFAPPEAL, Fl1RSTCIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS DYLAN PIZZOLATO

CONSOLIDATED WITH PRISCILLA NOEL LEFEBURE VERSUS DYLAN JACOB PIZZOLATO NO. 2023 CW 0204

APRIL 24, 2023

In Re: Katherine Reznik Benoit, applying for supervisory

writs, Family Court Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 217897 c/w 218072. BEFORE: WELCH, PENZATO, AND LANIER, J'J.

WRIT DENIED.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT JEW AHP WIL
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 13125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5262]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9642-4]

Proposed Administrative Settlement Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(h) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended 
(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9622(h)(1), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
administrative settlement concerning the Eagle Picher Carefree Battery 
Superfund Site, located in Socorro, Socorro County, New Mexico.
    The settlement requires the one (1) settling party to pay a total 
of $200,000.00 as payment of response costs to the Hazardous Substances 
Superfund. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue pursuant to 
Section 107 of CERCLA, 42, U.S.C. 9607.
    For thirty (30) days beginning the date of publication of this 
notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to this 
notice and will receive written comments relating to the settlement. 
The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or 
withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose 
facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any 
comments received will be available for public inspection at 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 4, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement and additional background 
information relating to the settlement are available for public 
inspection at 1445 Ross Avenue Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. A copy of the 
proposed settlement may be obtained from Robert Werner, Enforcement 
Officer, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or by calling (214) 
665-6724. Comments should reference the Eagle Picher Carefree Battery 
Superfund Site, located in Socorro, Socorro County, New Mexico and EPA 
CERCLA Docket Number 06-08-11, and should be addressed to Robert 
Werner, Enforcement Officer, at the address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gloria Moran, Attorney, 1445 Ross 
Avenue Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or call (214) 665-3193.

     Dated: February 17, 2012.
 Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator (6RA).
[FR Doc. 2012-5262 Filed 3-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### Inetta Barnett, Respondent, *v.*The Metropolitan Street Railway Co., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

June, 1900.)

Judgment — Admissibility, on appeal, of record evidence to support.

Where the record of the trial of an action for negligence in the Municipal Court of the city of New York does not show that, at the time of the accident, the defendant was a domestic corporation, having its principal place of business in the city of New York — a fact necessary to jurisdiction in that court — the plaintiff may, in support of her judgment, supply the defect, on appeal, by introducing on the argument a certified copy of the certificate of the defendant’s incorporation.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, eleventh district, borough of Manhattan, entered on a verdict of a jury, in favor of the plaintiff.

Henry A. Robinson, for appellant.

J. Baldwin Hands, for respondent.

*99
      *Per Curiam.*

The brief of the appellant states 'that this appeal was taken in order to raise the point that there is no proof in the case that the defendant was at the time of the accident, a domestic corporation, with its principal place of business in the city of New York, and that, therefore, the plaintiff has failed to show that the defendant was within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of New York. Since the appeal was taken, the plaintiff has served upon the defendant a notice that she would produce before this Appellate Term a certified copy of the certificate of incorporation of the defendant, in order to support the judgment. This the plaintiff had a right to do. It may be that the court could take judicial notice of the fact that the defendant is a domestic corporation, and that its principal place of business is in the city of New York, but, in any event, it has frequently been held that an omission, in proof, of a matter of record may be supplied on appeal to sustain a judgment, when a record cannot be answered or changed. Dunford v. Weaver, 84 N. Y. 445; Day v. Town of New Lots, 107 id. 148; Dunham v. Townshend, 118 id. 281.

Judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dugro, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
### 1.65

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERALOF **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

$onorable I... A. Woedo state Superintendent of Pub110 Pnetruotlon AUdiin, Texas pear sir:

Your request for an 0 a# umd in Artiola 295, 

### PenalC thl8 Pepartment.

Artlole e95, Psilil C

loam suoh gro more than trrvn pon any pub110 oh eohool after BUChsabocl to leas than rive nor

drfinitiena am tOere giv;n, the firat 

### termas used in ltrr “broad aen@' or in atlnp6 that the word ie so!#t~r tied ~to

l XtCdml nadet

### A.66

200. L. A. Woode, Page 2

In the ease of **Shaw** V. Carter, 

### 28'7 Pac. 2T3,the Oklahoma supreme Court, In dlscuss~ the meenln~ of the word “semvlon,” &mrly reoognlzes that the word can be end la used in both a broad end restrict&d sense. The court sets out the result of an 

### extended studyon the subjeat and makes exhaulrtfve comments on both meanings. ubila the oooaslon Sor deilnlng the word has never arisen under Artlole 295, Penal Code, the Courts OS

### Texas **have** 

### reoognlxedthe faot that the word does have two 616tlnot meanings 

### and have 

### further recognized a clear-out dlstlnotlon between the meaning OSthe word *sesalon” and that OSthe word *term.* 

### 606 Robertclon f. state, 70 2, 3. 542; Llparl **Y.** state, 19 Tex. hppe. 431; 3merson v. P.K.T. W., 

### 82 S. 6'.1060.

Xebster’s Internettonal Dictionary elves the SolIoulng general derlnitlon:

“The actual or construotlvs sitting OSe oourt, ooum3e1, leg1sIature, eto., or the actual or aormtruo

### tlveaseembly OSthe members of suah a **body,** for the traneaotlon OS business.

. . v The 8am authority 

### glresthe followingdeilt&tlor, atvrelatlng to sduoatlon:

“A period OSthe year during whloh au eduoatloual institution oonduate olasees or 

### gl~'ee lnstruotlone.r The intention aS the Leglelature in enacting this etatute 

### becomesclear when all the a’ttendant olroumstanoea 

### are takeninto oonslderatlon.The buildings and property OSmhoole are proteoted **by** other general lawe rehtlug to trespass, burglary and theit. 

### The evident purpose OSths statute under oonslderatlon la the proteotlon of children and the preaervatlon OSorder and deoontm throughout that period OSthe day during which sohool 18 open 

### and In **6eW3ion.** The authority OSteachers In charge is clearly reboplzed and auS

### talned. Had the 

### Legislatureintended the statute to operate at +ny other time, no apparent 

### reasonexlets Sol’.llmltlng its applloatlon to any particular period OSthe year; Turthermore, ii the Leglelature rceant to reier to the entire sohool year, the word utennw 

### would. have been appropriate and **speoiiio.**

It la themfore the opinion OSthis Department thist the term 

### Wm5ssion,naa used in Artlole 295~, Penal Code, refers to that period OS the day during which a sohool lo open, alasses are eonduoted and other business and sohool matters 

### are oonsldsred. In othersoa. L. AI YiOods, Page :3

w&s, the seselon of a eohool oomlwnoes at the time the door8 are opened In the morning and oloses at the time the pereon in ohargo look6 the doors In the afternoon or evening,

Your8 very truly
#### § 207.8 Release of information under FOIA.

The Board will make covered agreements and annual reports available to the public in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552 *et seq.*) and the Board's Rules Regarding the Availability of Information (12 CFR part 261). A party to a covered agreement may request confidential treatment of proprietary and confidential information in a covered agreement or an annual report under those procedures.
#### § 161.1 When do the definitions in this part apply?

The definitions in this part and in 12 CFR part 141 apply throughout parts 100-199 of this chapter, unless another definition is specifically provided.