alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

§ 1.8 Reconsideration by the Administrator. ( a ) Any interested party may seek reconsideration of a wage determination issued under this part or of a decision of the Administrator regarding application of a wage determination.
( b ) Such a request for reconsideration must be in writing, accompanied by a full statement of the interested party's views and any supporting wage data or other pertinent information. Requests must be submitted via email to *dba.reconsideration@dol.gov*; by mail to Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20210; or through other means directed by the Administrator. The Administrator will respond within 30 days of receipt thereof, or will notify the requestor within the 30-day period that additional time is necessary.
( c ) If the decision for which reconsideration is sought was made by an authorized representative of the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, the interested party seeking reconsideration may request further reconsideration by the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division. Such a request must be submitted within 30 days from the date the decision is issued; this time may be extended for good cause at the discretion of the Administrator upon a request by the interested party. The procedures in paragraph (b) of this section apply to any such reconsideration requests.
[88 FR 57728, Aug. 23, 2023]
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-24-00035-CV 

 

LAURIE PERRY AKA LAURIE BLACK, APPELLANT 

V. 

BILLD EXCHANGE, LLC, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 

Denton County, Texas 

Trial Court No. CV-2022-02690, Honorable Robert C. Ramirez, Presiding 

May 29, 2024 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Appellant, Laurie Perry aka Laurie Black, proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial 

court’s Summary Judgment.1 Perry’s brief was originally due April 15, 2024, but was not 

filed. By letter of April 22, 2024, we notified Perry that the appeal was subject to dismissal 

for want of prosecution, without further notice, if a brief was not received by May 2. On 

May 7, 2024, Perry attempted to file a document via eFile requesting a ninety-day

1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by 

the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. 
2

extension to file a brief. This document was rejected by the Clerk of the Court, however, 

because it was not served on the parties, did not include a certificate of conference, and 

was not accompanied by a filing fee as required by the appellate rules. See TEX. R. APP. 

P. 5, 9.5, 10.1(a)(5). Perry was instructed to file a corrected motion for extension in 

compliance with the appellate rules by May 9, 2024. She has not filed a corrected motion

or had any further communication with this Court to date.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

Per Curiam
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 1.9 Review by Administrative Review Board.

Any interested person may appeal to the Administrative Review Board for a review of a wage determination or its application made under this part, after reconsideration by the Administrator has been sought pursuant to § 1.8 and denied. Any such appeal may, in the discretion of the Administrative Review Board, be received, accepted, and decided in accordance with the provisions of 29 CFR part 7 and such other procedures as the Board may establish.
#### PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, v. TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C.I.O., et al., Appellants, TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA et al. v. Honorable Francis L. VAN DUSEN.

Nos. 13250, 13251.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued May 23, 1960.

Decided May 23,1960.

*694Asher W. Schwartz, New York City, for appellants.

Robert M. Landis, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.

Before GOODRICH, KALODNER and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

A district judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has issued a temporary restraining order which in effect restrains the defendants until May 28th from calling or encouraging a strike or work stoppage and from picketing the premises of the plaintiff. The defendants bring before us for relief from this order two propositions. The first is an appeal from the order; the second asks for a mandamus directed against the district judge issuing the order.

The first point is easily answered. This Court has said no later than April 25th of this year and again on January 22nd of this year that a temporary restraining order is not appealable. Pennsylvania Motor Truck Ass’n, et al. v. Port of Philadelphia Marine Terminal Ass’n, et al., 3 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 931; Madison Shipping Corp. v. National Maritime Union, et al., 3 Cir., 1960, 273 F.2d 955.

The second point presents more difficulty. We have said, so many times-that we need not multiply the citations,, that mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. The plaintiff acknowledges this. But, it says, that here the district judge did not in his order respect the jurisdictional limitations-within which Rule 65, 28 U.S.C.A., confines a judge in the issuing of a temporary restraining order without notice-to the other side and hearing thereon. Therefore, it says, the order was void and being void is of no effect and an application for mandamus is a proper-means of bringing the point to this Court.

The Court regrets that effort was-not made to give the union notice of the-application for a restraining order. Granted that it would have involved some - inconvenience and granted, too, that the union whose headquarters is in New York had not at the time appointed local counsel, still, a telephone call to the union-headquarters or to its counsel in New York would have eliminated the necessity of this hearing. This is regrettable,,, but we do not think jurisdictional, in view of what appears in this record.

The district judge’s order does recite-that the danger of irreparable injury is-*695immediate. The fact that he did not go further and state the conclusions in the terms of the rule we do not think makes the order void. The merits of the controversy will, of course, be looked into upon the hearing for preliminary injunction. We do not think the order so far fails to comply with the rule that we can say it is void. The application for mandamus (No. 13,251), therefore, will be denied and the motion for dismissal of the appeal (No. 13,250) on the matter of the temporary restraining order will be granted.
EXHIBIT 99.4

                 Master Servicer's Sarbanes-Oxley Certification
                       (1998 Transactions - 2000 Reports)

                   BANK OF AMERICA MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC.,
                       MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES,
                      SERIES SET FORTH ON EXHIBIT I HERETO

            I, Gary K. Bettin, a Senior Vice President of Bank of America, N.A.,
certify that:

1.    I have reviewed the annual reports on Form 10-K for the calendar year 2000
      and all reports on Form 8-K containing the statements to
      certificateholders set forth in Section 4.03(b) of the Pooling and
      Servicing Agreements listed on Exhibit I hereto (the "Distribution Date
      Statements") filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by
      such annual reports of the trusts (each, a "Trust") formed pursuant to
      such Pooling and Servicing Agreements;

2.    Based on my knowledge, with respect to each Trust, the information in
      these reports, taken as a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of
      a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
      were made, not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by such
      annual report; and

3.    Based on my knowledge, the servicing information required to be provided
      to the trustee by each master servicer under each Pooling and Servicing
      Agreement for inclusion in the related Trust's Distribution Date
      Statements is included in these reports.


                                        BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
                                           as Master Servicer


                                        By:/s/ Gary K. Bettin
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name:  Gary K. Bettin
                                           Title: Senior Vice President

<PAGE>

         PARTIES TO AGREEMENT              DATE OF AGREEMENT        SERIES
================================================================================

Bank of America Mortgage Securities,    April 1, 1998               1998-1
Inc., Bank of America, N.A. and
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
of California

Bank of America Mortgage Securities,    May 1, 1998                 1998-2
Inc., Bank of America, N.A. and
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
of California

Bank of America Mortgage Securities,    June 1, 1998                1998-3
Inc., Bank of America, N.A. and The
Bank of New York

Bank of America Mortgage Securities,    July 1, 1998                1998-4
Inc., Bank of America, N.A. and The
Bank of New York

Bank of America Mortgage Securities,    September 1, 1998           1998-5
Inc., Bank of America, N.A. and The
Bank of New York

Bank of America Mortgage Securities,    November 1, 1998            1998-6
Inc., Bank of America, N.A. and The
Bank of New York

Bank of America Mortgage Securities,    December 1, 1998            1998-7
Inc., Bank of America, N.A., BA
Mortgage, LLC and The Bank of New York
#### § 68.1 Applicability.

This part prescribes the medical education and examination requirements for operating an aircraft under § 61.113(i) of this chapter without holding a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

Pulaski Financial Corp.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (No. 333-32986, No. 333-84392, No. 333-84515, No. 333-112962, and No. 333-135895) on Form S-8 and in the registration statement (No. 333-128997) on Form S-3 of Pulaski Financial Corp. andsubsidiaries (the Company) of our report dated December 12, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of September 30, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income,stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 2008, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2008, which report is incorporated byreference in the September 30, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of the Company. 

Our report with respect to the consolidated financial statementsrefers to the Company’s adoption of the provisions of the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), *Share-Based Payment*, on October 1, 2005. 

/s/ **KPMG LLP**

St. Louis, Missouri

December 12, 2008
#### RELIABLE FINANCE COMPANY *v.*James H. R RHODES et al

5-5963

483 S.W. 2d 187

Opinion delivered July 10, 1972

[Rehearing denied August 28, 1972.]

*Wayne Jewell,*for appellant.

*James J. Calloway*and *Denver L. Thornton,*for appellees.

PER CURIAM

In disposing of this rather complicated case the trial court made seven separate findings, some of law, some of fact, some of mixed law and fact. The decree of the chancellor is not abstracted and therefore we are left without the benefit of those conclusions. The omissioh violates our Rule 9 (d) because an abstract of thé decree in this case is “necessary to an understanding of all questions presented to this court for *decision..."Tudor*v. *Tudor,*247 Ark. 822, 448 S.W. 2d 17 (1969); *Weir*v. *Hill,*237 Ark. 922, 377 S.W. 2d 178 (1964); *Pyramid Life Ins. Co.*v. *Hamilton,*237 Ark. 797, 376 S.W. 2d 555 (1964); *Davidson*v. *Messing,*214 Ark. 227, 215 S.W. 2d 138 (1949); *Ransom*v. *Warner,*193 Ark. 1179, 103 S.W. 2d 629 (1937).

Affirmed under Rule 9 (d).
#### § 1404.8 Freedom of choice.

Nothing contained in this part should be construed to limit the rights of parties who use FMCS arbitration services to jointly select any arbitrator or arbitration procedure acceptable to them. Once a request is made to OA, all parties are subject to the procedures contained in this part.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERALAVIATIONADMINISTRATIORECEIVED 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

Nouveau Laboratories, LLC, 

d/b/a Covermark USA 

Respondent. 

JUN .. ~: 201 

·-ARING DOCKET 

Docket No. F AA-2011-0488 

FAA Case No. 201080700318 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

I 

co 

COMPLAINANT'S PROPOSED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE 

N 

oThe Complainant, pursuant to the Administrative Law Judge's Order served April 

3, 2012, hereby proposes to the following Procedural Schedule: 

1. Exchange of any discovery requests by June 6, 2012 

' 2. · Exchange of objections to discovery requests by June 13, 2003 . . . . . 

3. Discovery responses due July 6, 2012. 

· · 4. Exchange of list of expect~d witnesses, suiru.Tiaries 'of their proposed 

testimony, and exhibit lists to be filed by August 5, 2012. 

5. Settlement was last discussed between the parties on April12, 2012. No 

settlement has been reached. Complainant remains willing to discuss possible settlement 

and will notify the Adihinistra:tive La\V Judge l.m'mediatel'y in the event tliat any 

agreement is reached. 

6. Respondent was presented with the above schedule through certified mail 

on May 14, 2012'and has not objected to it. · · 
Respectfully submitted this 24th day of May, 2012. 

GERALD A. ELLIS 

Managing Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

404-305-5200 

-.. · . 

., .. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Complainant's Proposed Procedural 

Schedule has been mailed this date by Certified Mail or sent via facsimile to the 

following: 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

DOT, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

East Building Ground Flopr 

Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Keith Roberts 

Roberts Proprietaries, Inc. 

180 West 80Th St. 

New York, NY 10024 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2W1000 

Wilbur Wright Building 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

MAY 2.4 2012 

Dated 

(original Certified+ fax) 

(1 copy Certified) 

(1 copy Certified)
# EUR-Lex - 31996D0255 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996D0255

**96/255/EC: Commission Decision of 26 March 1996 amending Decision 94/766/EC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery and aquaculture products from Taiwan (Text withh EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 086 , 04/04/1996 P. 0081 - 0082 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 26 March 1996 amending Decision 94/766/EC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery and aquaculture products from Taiwan (Text with EEA relevance) (96/255/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Article 11 (5) thereof,

Whereas the list of establishments approved by Taiwan for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the Community has been drawn up in Commission Decision 94/766/EC (2), as amended by Decision 96/31/EC (3); whereas this list may be amended following the communication of a new list by the competent authority in Taiwan;

Whereas the competent authority in Taiwan has communicated a new list of 17 establishments;

Whereas it is necessary to amend the list of approved establishments accordingly;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision have been drawn up in accordance with the procedure laid down by Commission Decision 90/13/EEC (4),

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex B of Decision 94/766/EC is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 26 March 1996.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 268, 24. 9. 1991, p. 15.

(2) OJ No L 305, 30. 11. 1994, p. 31.

(3) OJ No L 9, 12. 1. 1996, p. 6.

(4) OJ No L 8, 11. 1. 1990, p. 70.

ANNEX

'ANNEX B

LIST OF APPROVED ESTABLISHMENTS

>TABLE>
M A N D A T E

TO THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT of TRAVIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 24th day of 

September, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Sandeep Nanda, Appellant,

v.

Corey Huinker Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-13-00615-CV (Tr.Ct.No. D-1-GN-13-001387)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 24, 2015.



WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal 

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 8th day of December, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.

*Name:*                         Advisory Committee for Biological Sciences (1110).                    

*Date and Time:*                         July 19-21, 2000.                    

*Place:*                         Room 630, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Part-open.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Samuel Scheiner, Division of Environmental Biology, Room 635, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 306-1480.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support                    

*Agenda:*                         Closed Session: July 19, 2000, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; July 20, 2000, 8:30 a.m.-1 p.m. and 3-5 p.m.; July 21 9:30 a.m.-5 p.m.; review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Open Session:*                         July 20, 2000, 2-3 p.m. discussion on research trends, opportunities and assessment procedures in the Systematic and Population Biology Cluster.                     

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personnel information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b. (c)(4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                     

Dated: May 2, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-11276  Filed 5-4-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### Max Storch et al., Appellants, *v.*Abram Greenfield, Respondent.

Argued January 26, 1937;

decided March 9, 1937.

*571
      *Max Ornstein*for appellants.

*Irving G. Kennedy*for respondent.

Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered against appellants on the stipulation, with costs in all courts. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: Hubbs, J.
```

[113th Congress Public Law 111]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 128 STAT. 1172]]

Public Law 113-111
113th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
123 South 9<SUP>th</SUP> Street in De Pere, Wisconsin, as the ``Corporal 
  Justin D. Ross Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: June 9, 2014 -  [H.R. 
                                1228]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CORPORAL JUSTIN D. ROSS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 123 South 9<SUP>th</SUP> Street in De Pere, Wisconsin, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Corporal Justin D. Ross Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Corporal 
Justin D. Ross Post Office Building''.

    Approved June 9, 2014.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1228 (S. 2185):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014):
            Mar. 24, 26, considered and passed House.
            May 21, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
SM Energy s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 5, 2013

No. 04-12-00772-CV

W.H. SUTTON, Arctic Royalty Limited Partnership, Julie S. Mueller, Janet Lee Smith as 

Trustee of the Janet Lee Smith Family Trust, Anita Louise Davies as Trustee of the Anita Louise 

Davies Family Trust and Frederick Jackson Bell Jr., et al.,

Appellants

v.

SM ENERGY COMPANY,

Appellees

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CVQ001903 D3

Honorable Elma T. Salinas Ender, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellants' motion for extension of time to file motion for rehearing is hereby 

GRANTED. Appellants’ motion for rehearing is due on or before January 2, 2014.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of December, 2013.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court