alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 13.234 Petition to reconsider or modify a final decision and order of the FAA decisionmaker on appeal. ( a ) *General.* Any party may petition the FAA decisionmaker to reconsider or modify a final decision and order issued by the FAA decisionmaker on appeal from an initial decision. A party must file a petition to reconsider or modify in accordance with § 13.210 not later than 30 days after service of the FAA decisionmaker's final decision and order on appeal and must serve a copy of the petition on each party in accordance with § 13.211. A party is not required to serve any documents under this section on the administrative law judge. The FAA decisionmaker will not reconsider or modify an initial decision and order issued by an administrative law judge that has not been appealed by any party to the FAA decisionmaker.
( b ) *Number of copies.* The parties must file the original plus one copy of the petition or the reply to the petition, but only one copy if filing by email or fax, as provided in § 13.210.
( c ) *Contents.* A party must state briefly and specifically the alleged errors in the final decision and order on appeal, the relief sought by the party, and the grounds that support the petition to reconsider or modify. ( 1 ) If the petition is based, in whole or in part, on allegations regarding the consequences of the FAA decisionmaker's decision, the party must describe these allegations and must describe, and support, the basis for the allegations.
( 2 ) If the petition is based, in whole or in part, on new material not previously raised in the proceedings, the party must set forth the new material and include affidavits of prospective witnesses and authenticated documents that would be introduced in support of the new material. The party must explain, in detail, why the new material was not discovered through due diligence prior to the hearing.
( d ) *Repetitious and frivolous petitions.* The FAA decisionmaker will not consider repetitious or frivolous petitions. The FAA decisionmaker may summarily dismiss repetitious or frivolous petitions to reconsider or modify.
( e ) *Reply petitions.* Any party replying to a petition to reconsider or modify must file the reply in accordance with § 13.210 no later than 10 days after service of the petition on that party, and must also serve a copy of the reply on each party in accordance with § 13.211.
( f ) *Effect of filing petition.* The filing of a timely petition under this section will stay the effective date of the FAA decisionmaker's decision and order on appeal until final disposition of the petition by the FAA decisionmaker.
( g ) *FAA decisionmaker's decision on petition.* The FAA decisionmaker has discretion to grant or deny a petition to reconsider. The FAA decisionmaker will grant or deny a petition to reconsider within a reasonable time after receipt of the petition or receipt of the reply petition, if any. The FAA decisionmaker may affirm, modify, or reverse the final decision and order on appeal, or may remand the case for any proceedings that the FAA decisionmaker determines may be necessary.
# Official Journal L 222/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.222.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 222 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5427 August 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.222.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 222

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5427 August 2011

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 842/2011 of 19 August 2011 establishing standard forms for the publication of notices in the field of public procurement and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1564/2005 (1) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 842/2011 of 19 August 2011 establishing standard forms for the publication of notices in the field of public procurement and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1564/2005 (1)

1

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

HENRY E. SLAYTON, JR.,
Claimant

- Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee.

______________________

2012

- 7100

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 10

- 3240, Judge Bruce E. Kasold.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

T HOMAS R. B ENDER , Chisholm Chisholm & Kilpatrick, Ltd., of Providence, Rhode Island, argued for claimant

appellant. Of counsel was R OBERT V INCENT C HISHOLM

.

S TEVEN M. M AGER , Trial Attorney, Commercial Lit igation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington , DC, argued for respondent

appellee. With him on the brief were S TUART F. D ELERY

, Acting Assistant Attorney General, J EANNE E. D AVIDSON

, Director, and S COTT D. A USTIN , Assistant Director. Of

counsel were M ICHAEL J. T IMINSKI , Deputy Assistant

General Cou nsel, and T RACEY P ARKER W ARREN , Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Was hington, DC.

______________________T HIS CAUSE HAVING BEEN HEARD AN D CONSIDERED

, IT IS

O RDERED AND A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN

, P ROST , and O’M ALLEY

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

January 28, 2013 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly
Clerk
II 

Calendar No. 561 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3690 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2004 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 7, 2004 

Reported by Ms. COLLINS, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2 West Main Street in Batavia, New York, 

as the ‘‘Barber Conable Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo5 cated at 2 West Main Street in Batavia, New York, shall 

6 be known and designated as the ‘‘Barber Conable Post 

7 Office Building’’. 
2 

•hr 3690 RS 

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

4 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

5 to the ‘‘Barber Conable Post Office Building’’. 

Calendar No. 561 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3690 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postfice Building’’. via, New York, as the ‘‘Barber Conable Post Of- al Service located at 2 West Main Street in BataJUNE 7, 2004 

Reported without amendment
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       18
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    19
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      19
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                          18
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        19
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Signal Technology Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2003 (the "Report"), the
undersigned officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of hiS knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ George E. Lombard
------------------------------

George E. Lombard
Chief Executive Officer
March 31, 2003
Opinion filed September 10, 2009

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

___________

No. 11-09-00074-CV

__________

 JAMES DE MOSS, Appellant

V.

 CHARLES COTHRON ET AL, Appellees

On Appeal from the 259th District Court

 Jones County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 20752

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In April 2005, James De Moss sued Correctional Officer Charles Cothron, Captain Ronnie

Williams, Property Officer Janay Williams, Sergeant Denis Hawkins, Correctional Officer Patrick

Martin, Correctional Officer Donald Davis, Assistant Warden Stacey Jackson, Assistant Warden

Cary Cook, and Mailroom Supervisor Amanda McCree for various negligence, abuse, tort,

retaliation, and civil rights claims. On February 23, 2009, appellees filed a motion for dismissal for

want of prosecution pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. P. 165a. The trial court granted the motion and

dismissed the case. We affirm.
2

Appellant has filed various motions, responses, documents, and a brief in which he

challenges the dismissal of his claims. He argues that the trial court violated his freedom of speech.

He also contends that a motion to recuse was pending before the trial court and, therefore, that the

delay of four years was due to the trial court’s inaction not to his actions. The record before this

court does not support any of appellant’s contentions.

All of appellant’s arguments have been considered. Each is overruled. The order of the trial

court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

September 10, 2009

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.
# Official Journal L 194/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 194 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5822 July 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 194

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5822 July 2015

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (EU) 2015/1198 of 13 July 2015 on the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union within the Joint Committee established by the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Economic Community and the Principality of Andorra as regards the replacement of the Appendix to the Agreement concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation | 1 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1199 of 17 July 2015 recognising Bosnia and Herzegovina as being free from Clavibacter michiganensis ssp. sepedonicus (Spieckerman and Kotthoff) Davis et al.
  (notified under document C(2015) 4838) | 42 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (EU) 2015/1198 of 13 July 2015 on the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union within the Joint Committee established by the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Economic Community and the Principality of Andorra as regards the replacement of the Appendix to the Agreement concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation

1

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1199 of 17 July 2015 recognising Bosnia and Herzegovina as being free from Clavibacter michiganensis ssp. sepedonicus (Spieckerman and Kotthoff) Davis et al.
  (notified under document C(2015) 4838)

Clavibacter michiganensis

sepedonicus

(notified under document C(2015) 4838)

42

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CIK>  0000902056
<NAME> SAF T LOK INCORPORATED
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          50,558
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,782
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    799,560
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               884,900
<PP&E>                                       1,817,129
<DEPRECIATION>                                 563,040
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,565,684
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          585,900
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,615,809
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,565,684
<SALES>                                        198,658
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               466,893
<CGS>                                          287,897
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,943,415
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               144,881
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,909,300)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,909,300)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,909,300)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.37)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.27)<F1>
<FN>
<F1> Restated to conform to SFAS No. 128. "EPS-PRIMARY" denotes Basic EPS.
</FN>
        



</TABLE>
#### § 313.101 Right of action.

The FDIC may sue any employer for any amount that the employer fails to withhold from wages owed and payable to its employee in accordance with this subpart. However, a suit will not be filed before the termination of the collection action involving a particular debtor, unless earlier filing is necessary to avoid expiration of any applicable statute of limitations. For purposes of this subpart, “termination of the collection action” occurs when the agency has terminated collection action in accordance with the FCCS (31 CFR 903.1 through 903.5) or other applicable standards. In any event, termination of the collection action will have been deemed to occur if the FDIC has not received any payments to satisfy the debt from the particular debtor whose wages were subject to garnishment, in whole or in part, for a period of one (1) year.
§ 135.369 Large transport category airplanes: Reciprocating engine powered: En route limitations: All engines operating. ( a ) No person operating a reciprocating engine powered large transport category airplane may take off that airplane at a weight, allowing for normal consumption of fuel and oil, that does not allow a rate of climb (in feet per minute), with all engines operating, of at least 6.90 Vso (that is, the number of feet per minute obtained by multiplying the number of knots by 6.90) at an altitude of a least 1,000 feet above the highest ground or obstruction within ten miles of each side of the intended track.
( b ) This section does not apply to large transport category airplanes certificated under part 4a of the Civil Air Regulations.
#### SKINNER v. STATE ex rel. WILLIAMSON, Atty. Gen.

No. 28229.

Jan. 30, 1945.

*155 P. 2d 715.*

Claud Briggs and John Morrison, both of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Owen J. Watts, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

HURST, V.C.J.

On February 18, 1941, this court sustained the constitutionality of the Oklahoma Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act, S. L. 1935, p. 94, 57 O.S. 1941 §§ 171-195. Skinner v. State, 189 Okla. 235, 115 P. 2d 123. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. On June 1, 1942, the court reversed our decision and held that the act violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, unless this court can, by a process of excision, “by enlarging on the one hand or contracting on the other the class of criminals who might be sterilized,” make' the act satisfy the requirements of the equal protection clause. Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 86 L. Ed. 1655, 62 S. Ct. 1110. The basis of the decision was that under the laws of Oklahoma the crimes of larceny and embezzlement involve “intrinsically the same quality of offense,” the only real distinction being the time when the fraudulent or felonious intent arises.

We believe the act is plain in including those convicted of larceny among the persons covered by the act and in *107excluding' therefrom persons convicted of embezzlement. We cannot, therefore, use the severability clause as a justification for us to invade the legislative field so as to make the act comply with the requirements of the equal protection clause as suggested.

Reversed, with directions to dismiss the cause.

GIBSON, C.J., and RILEY, OSBORN, BAYLESS, WELCH, CORN, and DAVISON, JJ., concur.
§ 1264.112 Parties to the hearing. ( a ) The parties to the hearing shall be the defendant and the authority.
( b ) Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3730(c)(5), a private plaintiff under the False Claims Act, as amended, may participate in these proceedings to the extent authorized by the provisions of that Act. (See section 3 of the False Claims Amendments Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-562, October 27, 1986.)
#### Gibson *v.*State of Indiana.

[No. 22,179.

Filed October 9, 1912.]

1. Ckiminal *Law.—Death of Accused Pending*Appeal.—Effect.— Where a defendant dies pending his appeal from a judgment of conviction, in which the only punishment fixed was imprisonment in the State’s prison, the appeal will be dismissed, p. 316.

2. *Appeal.—Moot*Questions.—Questions, the determination of which will serve no useful purpose, will not be considered on appeal, p. 316.

3. Ckiminal *Law.—Appeal.—Question of*Costs.—An appeal will not be entertained simply to determine a question of costs in a criminal case. p. 316.

From Lake Circuit Court, *Vernon*W. *VanFleet,*Special Judge.

Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Walter Gibson. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.

*Dismissed.*

*316
      *David E. Boone, H. S. Barr*and *Harold, H. Wheeler,*for appellant.

*Thomas M. Honan,*Attorney-General, *Thomas H. Branaman, Edwin Corr*and *James E. McCullough,*for the State.

Monks, J.

Appellant was convicted in the court below of soliciting a bribe to influence his vote as a member of the common council of the city of Gary, on an ordinance pending before that body, in violation of §2378 Burns 1908, Acts 1905 p. 584, §477.

1. The only punishment fixed by the judgment was imprisonment in the State’s prison. Judgment for costs was rendered against appellant. Prom a judgment of conviction appellant perfected an appeal to this court on March 19, 1912.

The Attorney-General has filed a verified motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that appellant died on July 3, 1912, claiming that appellant’s death abated the appeal. It has been held that the death of an appellant under such circumstances abates the appeal. *State*v. *Martin*(1896), 30 Or. 108, 47 Pac. 196; *O’Sullivan*v. *People*(1892), 144 Ill. 604, 32 N. E. 192, 20 L. R. A. 143. Even if the judgment appealed from is reversed, there would be no person to try.

*2.*3. It has been held by this court that it “cannot give time to the examination of moot questions, the determination of which will serve no useful purpose.” *State, ex rel.,*v. *Board, etc.*(1899), 153 Ind. 302, 313, 54 N. E. 809, and cases cited; *Rowe*v. *Bateman*(1899), 153 Ind. 633, 635, 636, 54 N. E. 1065, 55 N. E. 754; *Princeton Coal, etc., Co.*v. *Gilmore*(1908), 170 Ind. 366, 369, 370, 83 N. E. 500, and cases cited. *State, ex rel.,*v. *Owens*(1910), 174 Ind. 142, 143, 91 N. E. 562; *Hood*v. *McCarthy*(1910), 174 Ind. 128, 91 N. E. 501. True there is a judgment for costs (3 Williams, Executors [7th Am. ed., Randolph & Taleott] 240), but an appeal will not be entertained simply to determine a question of costs. *Manlove*v. *317
      *State*(1899), 153 Ind. 80, 53 N. E. 385; *State, ex rel.,*v. *Boyd*(1909), 172 Ind. 196, 198, 87 N. E. 140, and cases cited; *State*v. *Martin, supra.*

The motion to dismiss the appeal is, therefore, sustained. Appeal dismissed.

Note.—Reported in 99 N. E. 424. See, also, under (1) 12 Cyc. 879; (2) 12 Cyc. 1455.
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24525 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/12/23 17:14:40 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24525 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/12/23 17:14:40 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24525 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/12/23 17:14:40 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24525 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/12/23 17:14:40 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24525 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/12/23 17:14:40 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24525 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/12/23 17:14:40 Desc: Main

Document Page 6 of 6