alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 263.22 Consolidation and severance of actions. ( a ) *Consolidation.* ( 1 ) On the motion of any party, or on the ALJ's own motion, the ALJ may consolidate, for some or all purposes, any two or more proceedings, if each such proceeding involves or arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, or involves at least one common respondent or a material common question of law or fact, unless such consolidation would cause unreasonable delay or injustice.
( 2 ) In the event of consolidation under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, appropriate adjustment to the prehearing schedule must be made to avoid unnecessary expense, inconvenience, or delay.
( b ) *Severance.* The ALJ may, upon the motion of any party, sever the proceeding for separate resolution of the matter as to any respondent only if the ALJ finds: ( 1 ) Undue prejudice or injustice to the moving party would result from not severing the proceeding; and
( 2 ) Such undue prejudice or injustice would outweigh the interests of judicial economy and expedition in the complete and final resolution of the proceeding.
# Response to Comments:

Comments received by B. Keith Overcash, Director United States Environmental Protection Agency

Comments received by Laura Boothe, Attainment Planning Branch Chief Lake Norman Regional Planning Organization

Centralina Council of Governments Mecklenburg County Air Quality Mecklenburg Union Metropolitan Planning Organization Charlotte Department of Transportation North Carolina Department of Transportation
§ 602.2 Disclosing reports of examination and other non-public information. ( a ) *Disclosure by FCA.* Reports of examination are FCA property. We prepare them for our confidential use and the use of the institution examined. We do not give reports of examination to the public. Except as provided in this section, only the Chairman or the Chairman's designee may consent to disclosing reports of examination of Farm Credit System institutions and other institutions subject to our examination. You may send a written request to our General Counsel that explains why we should give permission.
( b ) *Disclosure by Farm Credit System institutions.* An institution that we have examined may disclose its report of examination to its officers, directors, and agents, such as its attorney or accountant, if they agree to keep the report confidential. In addition, banks may disclose their reports of examination to their affiliated associations, associations may disclose their reports to their supervisory bank, and service corporations may disclose their reports of examination to the institutions that own them. An institution may not disclose these institutions' reports of examination to any other person without our written permission.
( c ) *Disclosure to the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation.* Without waiving any privilege or limiting any of the requirements of section 5.59 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, we may disclose reports of examination and other examination and non-public information, including data from reports of System accounts and exposures received pursuant to § 621.15 of this chapter, to the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation pursuant to confidentiality and data security agreements executed between the agencies.
( d ) *Disclosure to governmental entities.* Without waiving any privilege, we will disclose reports of examination to other Federal government entities: ( 1 ) In response to a Federal court order;
( 2 ) In response to a request of either House or a Committee or Subcommittee of Congress; or
( 3 ) When requested for confidential use in an official investigation by authorized representatives of other Federal agencies.
[64 FR 41770, Aug. 2, 1999, as amended at 78 FR 77561, Dec. 24, 2013]
#### Rosche v. McCoy

*Chester B. Scholl,*for plaintiff.

*William Joyce,*for defendant.

January 2, 1957.

Rodgers, P. J.,

This matter comes before the court on defendant’s preliminary objections to plaintiff’s complaint in trespass.

The complaint describes precisely the place of the accident and then proceeds to allege as to the negligence of defendant the following items:

*132(a) In failing to have his said automobile under proper and adequate control.

(b) In traveling at a high and excessive rate of speed at the time and place aforesaid.

(c) In failing to regard the rights and safety of minor plaintiff and others lawfully using the highway at the point aforesaid.

(d) In failing to keep his motor vehicle under such control as is required by The Vehicle Code of May 1, 1929, P. L. 905.

Defendant contends that this is not such a statement of “The material facts on which a cause of action . . . is based” as is required by rule 1019(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.

We agree.

In Lipinsky v. Graham, 88 D. & C. 156, this court stated the view that such general allegations standing alone were not sufficient to support a complaint in the face of a motion for more specific pleading. What is required? It is such a statement of the material facts as will indicate to defendant just how he failed to meet the standard required under the circumstances. The general allegations set out in this complaint do not meet that test. The motion for a more specific pleading will be granted. As we said in Lipinsky v. Graham: “The better rule seems to simply enforce the ancient requirements that defendant be informed of the problems which he is to face at the trial”.

*Order*

And now, this January 2, 1957, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the motion for a more specific pleading is granted. and that plaintiff file a more specific complaint consistent with the foregoing opinion.
<PAGE>   1
March 25, 1999

Mr. Hank Byun
Samsung Electronics
105 Challenger Road
Ridgefield Park, NJ  07660

Dear Hank:

The purpose of this letter is to confirm that Summus, Ltd. and High Speed Net
Solutions, Inc. (HSNS) have entered into a marketing license agreement. This
agreement authorizes HSNS to act solely, on behalf of Summus, Ltd., as the point
of contact for all commercial discussions and negotiations with Samsung relating
to Summus' video streaming product. For purposes of these negotiations with
Samsung, HSNS will also represent Summus Ltd. with regard to Summus' other
products and technology. We are confident that this arrangement will help to
ensure a prosperous relationship between all our companies.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify this point with you.

                         Best regards,

Summus, Ltd.                        High Speed Net Solutions, Inc.


/s/ Daniel E. Stansky               /s/ Peter R. Rogina
-----------------------             ------------------------------
Daniel E. Stansky                   Peter R. Rogina
Chief Operating Officer             President
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         $24,201,105
<SECURITIES>                                     8,391,807
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,664,516
<ALLOWANCES>                                        84,480
<INVENTORY>                                        548,666
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   121,899
<PP&E>                                          46,854,644
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,100,844
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,676,187
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,176,670
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           145,459
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,676,187
<SALES>                                          8,255,947
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,280,947
<CGS>                                            2,188,435
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,580,793
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   8,936
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,157,119
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,856,563
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,300,556
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,330,556
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .11
        




</TABLE>
§ 218.776 Exemption from the definition of “broker” for banks effecting certain excepted or exempted transactions in a company's securities for its employee benefit plans. ( a ) A bank that meets the conditions for an exception or exemption from the definition of the term “broker” except for the condition in section 3(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(4)(C)(i)), is exempt from such condition to the extent that it effects a transaction in the securities of a company directly with a transfer agent acting for the company that issued the security, if: ( 1 ) No commission is charged with respect to the transaction;
( 2 ) The transaction is conducted by the bank solely for the benefit of an employee benefit plan account;
( 3 ) Any such security is obtained directly from: ( i ) The company; or
( ii ) An employee benefit plan of the company; and
( 4 ) Any such security is transferred only to: ( i ) The company; or
( ii ) An employee benefit plan of the company.
( b ) For purposes of this section, the term *employee benefit plan account* has the same meaning as in § 218.760(h)(4).
#### § 380.5 Treatment of covered financial companies that are subsidiaries of insurance companies.

The Corporation as receiver shall distribute the value realized from the liquidation, transfer, sale or other disposition of the direct or indirect subsidiaries of an insurance company, that are not themselves insurance companies, solely in accordance with the order of priorities set forth in 12 U.S.C. 5390(b)(1) and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

[76 FR 41640, July 15, 2011]
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-1672

___________ Michael Lewis Butler, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas * Department of Correction; Greg * Harmon, Warden, East Arkansas * Regional Unit, ADC; Cheryl Evans, Lt., * East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; * Dondie Franklin, Sgt., East Arkansas * Appeal from the United States Regional Unit, ADC; Harrison * District Court for the Foreman, Sgt., East Arkansas Regi onal * Eastern District of Arkansas. Unit, ADC; Lamontrell Jones, Officer, * East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; * [UNPUBLISHED] Timothy L. Morrison, Officer, East * Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Felicia * Phillips, East Arkansas Regional Unit, * ADC; Cleaster Hubbard, Officer, East * Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Brenda * Anderson, Officer, East Arkansas * Regional Unit, ADC; T. Compton, * Grievance Supervisor, ADC; James * Gibson, Internal Affairs Supervisor, * ADC; Kathy Stewart; Mary Willis, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: September 9, 2010 Filed: September 16, 2010

___________1 The Honorable Brian S. M iller, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
-2- Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Arkansas inmate Michael Lewis Bu tler filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several Arkansas Department of Correction employees. In September 2009, Butler’s counsel informed the district court 1 that the parties had entered into a settlement agreement, and counsel requested the action be dismissed with prejudice. The court then ordered the complaint dism issed on September 14, but it did not enter judgment and retained jurisdiction for thirty days to vacate its order if a party showed that the settlement had not been comple ted. In October, Butler moved through counsel to vacate the dismissal order and to reopen the case. In November, Butler filed a separate pro se moti on to vacate, arguing that th e written settlement agreement did not reflect certain verbal assurances made by defendants. In January 2010, the district court denied the pending motions to vacate upon concluding that the parties had settled, and entered judgment dismi ssing the action with prejudice. Butler appeals.
We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in concluding that the parties had settled. See Chaganti & Assocs., P.C. v. Nowotny , 470 F.3d 1215, 1221 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review; basic pr inciples of contract law govern existence and enforcement of a lleged settlement); see also Worthy v. McKesson Corp. , 756 F.2d 1370, 1373 (8th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (p arties to voluntary settlement agreement cannot avoid agreement simply becauseagreement ultimately proves to be disadvantageous). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
§ 328.107 Formal enforcement actions. ( a ) *Enforcement authority.* For the purpose of enforcing the requirements of section 18(a)(4) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1818(a)(4)) and this subpart, the General Counsel has delegated authority to bring administrative enforcement actions against any person under sections 8(b), (c), (d), and (i) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1818(b), 1818(c), 1818(d), and 1818(i)). In the case of conduct by a Regulated Institution for which another Federal banking agency is the appropriate Federal banking agency or an institution-affiliated party of such an institution, the General Counsel may not bring an enforcement action under this subpart unless the FDIC has provided the appropriate Federal banking agency with notice as set forth in § 328.105(a)(1) and the appropriate Federal banking agency failed to take the recommended action.
( b ) *Venue.* Unless the person who is the subject of the enforcement action consents to a different location, the venue for an administrative action commenced under section 18(a)(4) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1818(a)(4)), will be as follows: ( 1 ) In a case where the person who is the subject of the action is an Insured Depository Institution or an IAP of an Insured Depository Institution, in the Federal judicial district or territory in which the home office of the Insured Depository Institution is located.
( 2 ) In a case where the person who is the subject of the action is not an Insured Depository Institution or an IAP of an Insured Depository Institution, the Federal judicial district or territory where the person who is the subject of the action resides, if the subject resides in the United States. If the subject of the action does not reside in the United States, the venue will be where the subject of the action conducts business or the Federal judicial district for the District of Columbia.
( 3 ) For the purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a natural person is deemed to reside in the Federal judicial district where the natural person is domiciled. A person other than a natural person is deemed to reside in the Federal judicial district where it is headquartered or has its principal place of business.
( c ) *Rules of practice and procedure.* All actions brought and maintained under this section will be subject to the FDIC's Rules of Practice and Procedure in subparts A through C of part 308 of this chapter (12 CFR 308.1 through 308.109).
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 17

- 00503

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.R.M.

, a Child

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015EM503110

Honorable Nick Catoe Jr., Judge Presiding 1

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is REVERSED

and this matter is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.

Appellant Father is not entitled to r ecover his appellate costs because the Office of the

Attorney General of Texas is exempt from payment of appellate costs in Title IV

- D cases.

SIGNED June 27, 2018.

_____________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

1 The Honorable Stephani Walsh is the presiding judge of the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas. The

order challenged in this appeal was signed by the Honorable Nick Cato e Jr., Associate Judge, Bexar County, Texas.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2645 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2645

          To suspend temporarily the duty on Dianix Black XF.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 26, 2003

 Mrs. Myrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To suspend temporarily the duty on Dianix Black XF.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON DIANIX BLACK XF.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by striking heading 
9902.32.81 and inserting the following:

      

``      9902.32.81       Mixture of           Free       No change        No change        On or before 12/
                          Napthalenesulfonic                                                31/2008           ''
                          acid, polymer with                                                                   .
                          formaldehyde,
                          sodium salt (CAS
                          No. 36290-04-7);
                          .beta.-Alanine, N-
                          (4-((2-bromo-6-
                          choloro-4-
                          nitrophenyl)azo)ph
                          enyl)-N-(3-methoxy-
                          3-oxoproply)-,
                          methyl ester (CAS
                          No. 59709-38-5);
                          Ethanol, 2,2- ((4-
                          ((3,5-dinitro-2-
                          thienyl)azo)phenyl
                          ) imino)bis-,
                          diacetate (ester)
                          (CAS No. 42783-06-
                          2); and .beta.-
                          Alanine, N-(3-
                          (acetylamino)-4-
                          ((2,4-
                          dinitrophenly)azo)
                          phenyl)-N-(3-
                          methoxy-3-
                          oxoproply)-,
                          methyl ester (CAS
                          No. 42783-06-2);
                          and (CAS No. 70729-
                          65-6) (the
                          foregoing provided
                          for in subheading
                          3204.11.35).......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 308.100 Applicability date.

These Local Rules in this subpart B apply to adjudicatory proceedings initiated on or after April 1, 2024. Any adjudicatory proceedings initiated before April 1, 2024, continue to be governed by the previous version of the Local Rules included in appendix A to this part.
#### §§ 324.213-324.299 [Reserved]
§ 410.170 Compliance procedures. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this section applies to all allegations of discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs or activities conducted by the agency.
( b ) The agency shall process complaints alleging violations of section 504 with respect to employment according to the procedures established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613 pursuant to section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791).
( c ) General Counsel, Export-Import Bank of the United States shall be responsible for coordinating implementation of this section. Complaints may be sent to General Counsel, Export-Import Bank of the United States, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Room 947, Washington, DC 20571.
( d ) The agency shall accept and investigate all complete complaints for which it has jurisdiction. All complete complaints must be filed within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination. The agency may extend this time period for good cause.
( e ) If the agency receives a complaint over which it does not have jurisdiction, it shall promptly notify the complainant and shall make reasonable efforts to refer the complaint to the appropriate government entity.
( f ) The agency shall notify the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board upon receipt of any complaint alleging that a building or facility that is subject to the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4151 through 4157), or section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 792), is not readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons.
( g ) Within 180 days of the receipt of a complete complaint for which it has jurisdiction, the agency shall notify the complainant of the results of the investigation in a letter containing— ( 1 ) Findings of fact and conclusions of law;
( 2 ) A description of a remedy for each violation found;
( 3 ) A notice of the right to appeal.
( h ) Appeals of the findings of fact and conclusions of law or remedies must be filed by the complainant within 90 days of receipt from the agency of the letter required by § 410.170(g). The agency may extend this time for good cause.
( i ) Timely appeals shall be accepted and processed by the head of the agency.
( j ) The head of the agency shall notify the complainant of the results of the appeal within 60 days of the receipt of the request. If the head of the agency determines that additional information is needed from the complainant, he or she shall have 60 days from the date of receipt of the additional information to make his or her determination on the appeal.
( k ) The time limits cited in paragraphs (g) and (j) of this section may be extended with the permission of the Assistant Attorney General.
( l ) The agency may delegate its authority for conducting complaint investigations to other Federal agencies, except that the authority for making the final determination may not be delegated to another agency.
[51 FR 4575, 4579, Feb. 5, 1986, as amended at 51 FR 7543, Mar. 5, 1986]
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:19883 Filed:01/21/22 Entered:01/25/22 14:39:35 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 4
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:19883 Filed:01/21/22 Entered:01/25/22 14:39:35 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 4
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:19883 Filed:01/21/22 Entered:01/25/22 14:39:35 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 4
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:19883 Filed:01/21/22 Entered:01/25/22 14:39:35 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 4
#### § 168.2 Designation of security officer.

Within 30 days after the effective date of insurance of accounts, the board of directors of each Federal savings association shall designate a security officer who shall have the authority, subject to the approval of the board of directors, to develop, within a reasonable time but no later than 180 days, and to administer a written security program for each of the association's offices.