alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1917.51 Hand tools. ( a ) Hand tools used by employees shall be maintained in safe operating condition.
( b ) ( 1 ) Hand-held portable electric tools shall be equipped with switches that must be manually held in a closed position to operate the tool.
( 2 ) Portable power-driven circular saws shall be equipped with guards above and below the base plate or shoe. The upper guard shall cover the saw to the depth of the teeth, except for the minimum arc needed to permit the base to be tilted for bevel cuts. The lower guard shall cover the saw to the depth of the teeth, except for the minimum arc needed to allow proper retraction and contact with the work. When the tool is withdrawn from the work, the lower guard shall automatically and instantly return to the covering position.
( c ) Only cutting tools shall be used to cut metal strapping or banding used to secure cargo.
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.                  

###### General Services Administration

          - 41 CFR Chapter 301 
          - [FTR Amendment 87] 
          - RIN 3090-AH18 

# AGENCY:

Office of Governmentwide Policy, GSA. 

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects entries listed in the prescribed maximum per diem rates for locations within the continental United States                               ( print page 31824)                            (CONUS) contained in a final rule appearing in Part III of the                         **Federal Register**                         of Thursday, December 2, 1999 (64 FR 67670). The rule, among other things, increased/decreased the maximum lodging amounts in certain existing per diem localities, added new per diem localities, and removed a number of previously designated per diem localities.                     

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

January 1, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joddy P. Garner, Office of Governmentwide Policy (MTT), Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4857. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In rule document 99-31215 beginning on page 67670 in the issue of Thursday, December 2, 1999, make the following corrections: 

## Appendix A to Chapter 301 [Corrected] 

1. On page 67674, under the State of Colorado, city of Aspen, the seasonal dates, column one and lodging rates, column three are revised to read as follows: “January 1-March 31 $163, April 1-May 31 $68, June 1-December 31 $140”. 

2. On page 67678, under the State of Louisiana, the names of cities of New Orleans/Plaquemine/St. Bernard, column two is revised to read as follows: “Orleans, Iberville, Jefferson Parish and St. Bernard”. 

Pages 67674 and 67678, as corrected, read as follows: 

## Appendix A to Chapter 301—Prescribed Maximum Per Diem Rates for CONUS 

* * * * *
      ( print page 31825)          ( print page 31826)    
      ( print page 31827)    
Dated: May 11, 2000. 

Peggy G. DeProspero, 

Acting Director, Travel Management Policy Division. 

BILLING CODE 6820-34-P

[FR Doc. 00-12340 Filed 5-18-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820-34-C
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 32099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12709]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 15, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice 
President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Northwest Bancorporation, Inc., Houston, Texas; to merge with 
Redstone Bancorporation, Inc., Houston, Texas, and thereby indirectly 
acquire Redstone Bank, N. A., Houston, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 16, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-12709 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
O pinion filed November 30 , 2010



## In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No. 11

- 10

- 00 173

- C V

__________ STATE OF TEXAS , Appellant

V.

BLUE 1966 FORD MUSTANG VIN #6R07 A 105961

(Stacey McGrew) , Appellee

On Appeal from the Count Court at Law No. 2

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 4922

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is a civil forfeiture action brought under the T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. c h. 47 (Vernon 2006 & Supp. 2010 ). The justice court found that the Blue 1966 Ford Mustang VIN #6R07A105961 was stolen and determined that Francine Yuro had a superior right of possession than Stacey McGrew. McG rew appealed to the county court for a trial de novo. T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 574 b. T he county court then granted Stacey McGrew’s motion for summary judgment finding that McGrew was the only person to present a claim to the vehicle and that his claim was a valid prima facie claim. T he State of Texas appealed pursuant to Article 47.12

. We dismiss.2

McGrew argues that, because no oral notice of appeal was given as required by
Article 47. 12( c), the State has failed to timely perfect an appeal. The State contends that this court has jurisdiction because it timely filed a written notice of a ppeal. Article 47.12 provides that only “an interested person who appears at a hearing under this article may appeal , and such person must give an oral notice of appeal at the conclusion of the hearing” as well as follow the applicable Texas Rules of Appe llate P rocedure. The oral notice of appeal is required to invoke the jurisdiction of this c ourt. Phillips v. State , 77 S.W .3d 465, 467 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1 st Dist.] 2002, no pet.); White v. State , 930 S.W.2d 673, 675

- 76 (Tex. App.

—

Waco 1996, no pet.). The record does not reflect that the State gave the required oral notice of appeal, and the State does not argue that it gave one. The State relies on its written notice of appeal and on the fact that it is appealing from the granting of a motion for summary judgment. The State contends that the requirement of an oral notice of appeal applies only when the trial court holds a hearing on the merits. We disagree. Article 47.12 clearly applies to appeals from proceedings brought under Chapter 47. McGrew filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that there was no evidence that the vehicle was acquired by theft and requested tha t the trial court not only grant the motion but
also order the vehicle restored to him. This is the relief the trial court granted. The trial court disposed of the merits of the case in its judgment. To hold that Article 47.12 does not apply to the fact s of this case would violate the l egislature’s intent concerning appeals from civil forfeiture proceedings. Absent an oral notice of appeal in compliance with Article 47.12, the jurisdiction of this court is not invoked. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In reaching its decision,
the c ourt only considered evidence properly included in the record.

PER CURIAM

November 30 , 2010 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Strange, J.
#### In the Matter of Emma Rosenthal, as Surviving Executrix of Jesse Rosenthal, Deceased, Respondent, against Mark Graves et al., Constituting the State Tax Commission, et al., Appellants.

Submitted April 22, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Seth T. Cole*and *Harry T. O’Brien, Jr.,*of counsel), for appellants. *Thomas A. S. Beattie*and *Sidney A. Wolff*for respondent.

Appeal dismissed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ,
#### § 36.605 Enforcement procedures.

The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) (“Title VI”) are hereby adopted and applied to these Title IX regulations. These procedures may be found at 29 CFR 31.5, 31.7 through 31.11.

[65 FR 52881, Aug. 30, 2000]
# EUR-Lex - 32000D0429 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000D0429

**2000/429/EC: Commission Decision of 6 July 2000 amending Decision 97/365/EC on drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of products prepared from meat of bovine animals, swine, equidae and sheep and goats (notified under document number C(2000) 1844) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 170 , 11/07/2000 P. 0012 - 0013 *

Commission Decision

of 6 July 2000

amending Decision 97/365/EC on drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of products prepared from meat of bovine animals, swine, equidae and sheep and goats

(notified under document number C(2000) 1844)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2000/429/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 95/408/EC of 22 June 1995 on the conditions for drawing up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States are authorised to import certain products of animal origin, fishery products or live bivalve molluscs(1) as amended by Decision 98/603/EC(2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 97/222/EC(3) draws up a list of third countries from which the Member States authorise imports of meat products.

(2) For the countries on that list the animal health and veterinary certification requirements for importation of meat products have been laid down in Commission Decision 97/221/EC(4).

(3) Provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of products prepared from meat of bovine animals, swine, equidae and sheep and goats have been drawn up by Commission Decision 97/365/EC(5).

(4) The Commission has received from Slovakia a list of establishments, with guarantees that it fully meets the appropriate Community health requirements.

(5) A provisional list of establishments producing products prepared from meat of bovine animals, swine, equidae and sheep and goats can thus be drawn up in respect of Slovakia.

(6) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The text of the Annex to this Decision is added to the Annex to Decision 97/365/EC.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 6 July 2000.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 243, 11.10.1995, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 289, 28.10.1998, p. 36.

(3) OJ L 89, 4.4.1997, p. 39.

(4) OJ L 89, 4.4.1997, p. 32.

(5) OJ L 154, 12.6.1997, p. 41.

ANEXO/BILAG/ANHANG/ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ/ANNEX/ANNEXE/ALLEGATO/BIJLAGE/ANEXO/LIITE/BILAGA

País: REPÚBLICA ESLOVACA/Land: SLOVAKIET/Land: SLOWAKISCHE REPUBLIK/Χώρα: ΣΛΟΒΑΚΙΚΗ ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ/Country: SLOVAK REPUBLIC/Pays: SLOVAQUIE/Paese: REPUBBLICA SLOVACCA/Land: SLOWAAKSE REPUBLIEK/País: REPÚBLICA ESLOVACA/Maa: SLOVAKIA/Land: SLOVAKIEN

>TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 98 (Friday, May 19, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31853]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12682]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-105089-99]
RIN 1545-AX38


Guidance Under Section 356 Relating to the Treatment of 
Nonqualified Preferred Stock and Other Preferred Stock in Certain 
Exchanges and Distributions; Hearing Cancellation

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed 
rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notice of cancellation of a public 
hearing on proposed regulations relating to the treatment of 
nonqualified preferred stock and other preferred stock in certain 
exchanges and distributions under section 356 of the Internal Revenue 
Code.

DATES: The public hearing originally scheduled for Wednesday, May 31, 
2000, at 10 a.m., is cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LaNita Van Dyke of the Regulations 
Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate), at (202) 622-7180 (not a 
toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice 
of public hearing that appeared in the Federal Register on January 26, 
2000, (65 FR 4203), announced that a public hearing was scheduled for 
May 31, 2000, at 10 a.m., in room 2615, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The subject of the public 
hearing is proposed regulations under section 354, 355, 356, and 1036 
of the Internal Revenue Code. The deadline for requests to speak and 
outlines of oral comments expired on May 10, 2000.
    The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing, 
instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to 
submit a request to speak and an outline of the topics to be addressed. 
As of May 15, 2000, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the 
public hearing scheduled for May 31, 2000, is cancelled.

Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 00-12682 Filed 5-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
§ 38.64 Procedures for concluding post-approval compliance reviews. ( a ) Where, as the result of a post-approval review, the Director has made a finding of noncompliance, the Director must issue a Letter of Findings. This Letter must advise the recipient, in writing, of: ( 1 ) The preliminary findings of the review;
( 2 ) Where appropriate, the proposed remedial or corrective action to be taken, and the time by which such action should be completed, as provided in § 38.90;
( 3 ) Whether it will be necessary for the recipient to enter into a written assurance or Conciliation Agreement, as provided in §§ 38.92 and 38.93; and
( 4 ) The opportunity to engage in voluntary compliance negotiations.
( b ) Where no violation is found, the recipient must be so informed in writing.
#### GOODALL v DETERS

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21689.

Decided Dec. 11, 1929

Marshall, CJ., Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
----

Notice to importers in the European Union in 2005 of controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer, regarding Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that deplete the ozone layer (1)

(2004/C 187/03)

----

(1)OJ L 244, 29.9.2000, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) 1804/2003, (OJ L 265, 16.10.2003, p. 1).

(2)  Controlled substances or mixtures which are imported in a manufactured product (other than a container used for the transport or storage of the substance) are excluded from the scope of this notice.

(3)  For mixtures: only the quantity of the controlled substances in the mixture should be included in the ODP quantity. 1,1,1-trichloroethane is always put on the market with stabilisers. Importers should establish from their supplier what is the percentage of stabiliser to be deducted before calculating the ODP-weighted tonnage.

----

ANNEX I

SUBSTANCES COVERED

NEW SUBSTANCES

----

(1)  These ozone-depleting potentials are estimates based on existing knowledge and will be reviewed and revised periodically in the light of decisions taken by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

(2)  This formula does not refer to 1,1,2-trichloroethane.

(3)  Identifies the most commercially-viable substance as prescribed in the Protocol.

----

ANEXO II/PŘÍLOHA II/BILAG II/ANHANG II/ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ II/ANNEX II/LISA II/ANNEXE II/II. MELLÉKLET/ALLEGATO II/II PRIEDAS/II PIELIKUMS/ANNESS II/BIJLAGE II/ZAŁĄCZNIK II/ANEXO II/PRÍLOHA II/PRILOGA II/LIITE II/BILAGA II

BELGIQUE/BELGΙË

ČESKÁ REPUBLIKA

DANMARK

DEUTSCHLAND

EESTI

ΕΛΛΑΣ

ESPAŇA

FRANCE

IRELAND

ITALIA

ΚΥΠΡΟΣ

LATVIJA

LIETUVA

LUXEMBOURG

MAGYARORSZÁG

MALTA

NEDERLAND

ÖSTERREICH

POLSKA

PORTUGAL

SLOVENIJA

SLOVENSKO

SUOMI/FINLAND

SVERIGE

UNITED KINGDOM

----
#### Brenda J. Nabi, Respondent, v Siddiq Nabi, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 207]

—Order unanimously reversed* on the law without costs and application denied with leave to renew in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiffs application and awarding plaintiff counsel fees in the amount of $8,500 *(see, Lee v Chan,*245 AD2d 270). The parties’ separation agreement, incorporated into the amended judgment of divorce, authorizes an application for counsel fees only in connection with enforcement proceedings or appeals. Plaintiffs application improperly sought counsel fees from the inception of the action; relied on alleged intransigent conduct by defendant during the pendency of the action; failed to set forth competent evidence of plaintiffs financial circumstances; and failed to delineate separately the time spent, services rendered and charges made for legal services related to the appeal and to the enforcement proceeding. We therefore reverse the order and deny the application with leave to renew upon appropriate submissions *(see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete,*70 NY2d 879, 881; *Lee v Chan,*supra;*Faust v Faust,*199 AD2d 1057; *Kremler v Kremler,*199 AD2d 901, 902-903). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J. — Counsel Fees.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.
§ 38.42 Information to be provided to the Civil Rights Center (CRC) by grant applicants and recipients. In addition to the information which must be collected, maintained, and, upon request, submitted to CRC under § 38.41: ( a ) Each grant applicant and recipient must promptly notify the Director when any administrative enforcement actions or lawsuits are filed against it alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions, transgender status, and gender identity), national origin (including limited English proficiency), age, disability, or political affiliation or belief, or, for beneficiaries, applicants, and participants only, on the basis of citizenship or participation in a WIOA Title I-financially assisted program or activity. This notification must include: ( 1 ) The names of the parties to the action or lawsuit;
( 2 ) The forum in which each case was filed; and
( 3 ) The relevant case numbers.
( b ) Each recipient (as part of a compliance review conducted under § 38.63, or monitoring activity carried out under § 38.65) must provide the following information: ( 1 ) The name of any other Federal agency that conducted a civil rights compliance review or complaint investigation, and that found the grant applicant or recipient to be in noncompliance, during the two years before the grant application was filed or CRC began its examination; and
( 2 ) Information about any administrative enforcement actions or lawsuits that alleged discrimination on any protected basis, and that were filed against the grant applicant or recipient during the two years before the application or renewal application, compliance review, or monitoring activity. This information must include: ( i ) The names of the parties;
( ii ) The forum in which each case was filed; and
( iii ) The relevant case numbers.
( c ) At the discretion of the Director, grant applicants and recipients may be required to provide, in a timely manner, any information and data that the Director considers necessary to investigate complaints and conduct compliance reviews on bases prohibited under the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIOA and this part.
( d ) At the discretion of the Director, recipients may be required to provide, in a timely manner, the particularized information and/or to submit the periodic reports that the Director considers necessary to determine compliance with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIOA or this part.
( e ) At the discretion of the Director, grant applicants may be required to submit, in a timely manner, the particularized information that the Director considers necessary to determine whether or not the grant applicant, if financially assisted, would be able to comply with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIOA or this part.
( f ) Where designation of individuals by race or ethnicity is required, the guidelines of the Office of Management and Budget must be used.