alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 20, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 20, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20I0097. A & M HOSPITALITIES, L.L.C. et al. v. PRENITA ALIMCHANDANI.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2017CV1670
#### JUSTIN LLOYD v. DANIEL BAILEY, in his individual and official capacity as Sheriff of Mecklenburg County, and OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

No. 181PA15

Filed 29 January 2016

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous, unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals, __ N.C. App._, 772 S.E.2d 874 (2015), reversing and remanding an order entered on 21 May 2014 by Judge Calvin Murphy in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 7 December 2015.

*Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy and Kennedy, LLP, by Harold L. Kennedy, III and Harvey L. Kennedy, for plaintiff-appellant.*

*Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge and Rice, LLP, by Sean F. Perrin, for defendant-appellees.*

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in *Young v.*Bailey, _ N.C. _, _S.E.2d _ (2016) (355PA14-2), the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 851 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 851

To require the Federal Communications Commission to establish improved 
   predictive models for determining the availability of television 
                           broadcast signals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 1999

   Mr. Tauzin (for himself, Mr. Markey, Mr. Bliley, Mr. Dingell, Mr. 
 Oxley, Mr. Upton, Mr. Gillmor, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Largent, 
 Mr. Pickering, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Hill of Montana, Mr. Lewis 
  of California, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. John, Mr. Goss, and Mr. Boehlert) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
  Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Federal Communications Commission to establish improved 
   predictive models for determining the availability of television 
                           broadcast signals.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Save Our Satellites Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RULEMAKING REQUIRED.

    Title I of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting 
after section 11 (47 U.S.C. 161) the following new section:

``SEC. 12. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RULEMAKING REQUIRED.

    ``(a) Establishment of Improved Predictive Models Required.--Within 
90 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Commission 
shall establish different predictive models for making determinations 
of the boundaries of areas within the predicted Grade B Contour of 
television broadcast stations for purposes of this Act and for purposes 
of other Federal statutes and regulations. Such models shall include a 
model based on one of the models described in the Commission's report 
and order adopted February 2, 1999 (CS Docket 98-201).
    ``(b) Treatment as Unserved Household.--Any subscriber who on 
February 24, 1999, is receiving from a satellite carrier for private 
home viewing secondary transmissions of programming contained in a 
primary transmission made by a network station shall, during the period 
beginning February 24, 1999, and until the Commission completes the 
action required by subsection (a), be treated as residing in an 
unserved household for purposes of section 119 of title 17, United 
States Code.
    ``(c) Definitions.--The terms used in this section have the 
meanings provided by section 119(d) of title 17, United States Code.''.
                                 <all>
```
WATERSHED-GOGAMA GOLD CAMP AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the 5th day of December, 2003.

BETWEEN:		BOARDWALK CREATION LTD.
			4 Princess Street
			Orangeville, Ontario L9W 3V5
								("Vendor")

AND:			OSPREY GOLD CORP.
			35 Commerce Road
			Orangeville, Ontario L9W 3X5

								("Purchaser")

WHEREAS, the Vendor is the owner of the facility known as the
Watershed-Gogama Gold Camp and also known as the Boardwalk Camp
(previously known as Camp 303 - Domtar) located at or near the
Watershed Intersection of Highway 144, Gogama Region.

NOW THEREFORE,  in consideration of the premises and the mutual
covenants and agreements hereinafter contained, the parties hereto(
"Parties") agree as follows:

1.	The Vendor hereby agrees to transfer all its rights and
interest in the facility on the terms set out in this
Agreement, subject to a 2% net smelter return (retained by
DOMTAR INC.) on all minerals and industrial products
("N.S.R.") as well as the right to harvest trees ("Harvesting
Rights") which are also retained by DOMTAR INC.

2.	The Purchaser agrees to pay the Vendor $1,500,000.00 to be
paid by way of the issuance of 2,000,000 shares of Osprey Gold
Corp. and a demand note for U.S. $500,000.00.

3.	The Purchaser acknowledges that the purchase of the Assets of
the buildings is at his or her own risk and hereby agrees to
make no claims against the Seller based on alleged
representations, warranties (apart from the warranties
expressly set out able) or collateral agreements, relating to
the fitness of the Assets listed above for any particular
purpose or for their safe use.

4.	The Real Property transferred pursuant to the Agreement:

(a)	does not constitute a supply of a residential complex
made to an individual
for the purposes of paragraph 221(2)(b) of the ETA; and

(b)	is being purchased by the Purchaser as principal for its
own account and is not being purchased by the Purchaser
as an agent, trustee, or otherwise on behalf of or for
another person.

<PAGE>


5.	The Purchaser will indemnify and save harmless the Vendor from
any GST, penalty, interest or other amounts which may be
payable by or be assessed against the Vendor under the ETA as
a result of or in connection with the Vendor's failure to
collect and remit any GST applicable on the sale and
conveyance of the Real Property to the Purchaser by the
Vendor.

6.	The Purchaser has applied for and is awaiting for a GST
number assignment.

DATED at Orangeville this 5th day of December, 2003.



BOARDWALK CREATION LTD.			OSPREY GOLD CORP.




Per:  /s/ Betty North                   Per: /s/ Douglas Budden
---------------------                   -----------------------
Betty North, President                  Doug Budden, Vice-President


<PAGE>
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****United States--east coast,Delaware--Pennsylvania--New Jersey, Delaware River, Wilmington to Philadelphia[electronic resource] /**
 
SuDoc Number:C 55.418/7:12312/

Item Number:0191-B-13 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000878744
 
Zip Files: 1995-1999 | 2000-2009
 
April 21, 2020
#### § 301-11.26 How do I request a review of the per diem in a location?

If you travel to a location where the per diem rate is insufficient to meet necessary expenses, you may submit a request, containing pertinent lodging & meal cost data, through your agency's Travel Manager asking that the location be reviewed. Depending on the location in question your agency's Travel Manager may submit the review request to:

| For CONUS locations | For non-foreign area locations | For foreign area locations |
| --- | --- | --- |
| General Services Administration, Office of Government-wide Policy, 1800 F St. NW, Washington, DC 20405 | Defense Travel Management Office, Attn: Policy and Regulations Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 04J25-01, Alexandria, VA 22350-9000 | Director, Office of Allowances, Department of State, Annex 1, Suite L-314, Washington, DC 20522-0103. |

Table 1 to § 301-11.26

[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15961, Apr. 1, 1998, as amended by FTR Amdt. 108, 67 FR 57965, Sept. 13, 2002; FTR Amdt. 2010-04, 75 FR 59095, Sept. 27, 2010; FTR Amdt. 2011-03, 76 FR 55275, Sept. 7, 2011; FTR Case 2020-300-1, 87 FR 55705, Sept. 12, 2022]
No. 10-11183.

#### Carlson *v.*American Express et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1918** 

TODD M. JACK , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv - 00350

- CMH

- JFA )

Submitted : November 4, 2013 Decided: November 8, 2013

Before DIAZ and THACKER , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Todd M. Jack, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Noah Lief, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Todd M. Jack appeals the district court ’ s order s dismissing this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (b)(6) and denying his motion for reconsideration . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stat ed by the district court. Jack v. Virginia Employment Comm’n , No. 1:13

- cv - 00350

- CMH

- JFA (E.D. Va. June 25, 2013) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argum ent would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
# Comments on: 2021-1732: Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4169

To amend title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974

to provide that activities to bring structures and sites into compliance

with building, health and safety, and environmental laws and ordinances

shall be activities eligible for assistance under such title.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 12, 1994

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

Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To amend title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to provide that activities to bring

structures and sites into compliance with building, health

and safety, and environmental laws and ordinances shall

be activities eligible for assistance under such title.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Urban Revitalization

5 Act of 1994’’.
2

•HR 4169 IH

1 SEC. 2. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ELIGI2 BLE ACTIVITIES.

3 Section 105(a) of the Housing and Community

4 Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(4)) is

5 amended—

6 (1) in paragraph (24), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the

7 end;

8 (2) in paragraph (25), by striking the period at

9 the end and inserting a semicolon;

10 (3) in the last paragraph (as added by section

11 1012(f)(3) of the Housing and Community Develop12 ment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–550; 106 Stat.

13 3905))—

14 (A) by striking ‘‘(21)’’ and inserting

15 ‘‘(26)’’; and

16 (B) by striking the period at the end and

17 inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

18 (4) by adding at the end the following new

19 paragraph:

20 ‘‘(27) any cleanup, removal, site preparation,

21 rehabilitation of structures, or other activities nec22 essary to make any real property (including improve23 ments thereon) that is blighted, deteriorated, dete24 riorating, undeveloped, or inappropriately developed

25 and used to carry out an economic development

26 project that meets the requirements of subpara-
3

•HR 4169 IH

1 graphs (A) through (F) of paragraph (17), comply

2 with any Federal, State, or local laws, ordinances, or

3 regulations relating to building or construction

4 standards, health or safety standards, or environ5 mental protection.’’.

6 SEC. 3. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEE

7 ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.

8 The first sentence of section 108(a) of the Housing

9 and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.

10 5308(a)) is amended—

11 (1) in clause (3), by striking ‘‘or’’; and

12 (2) by inserting before the period at the end the

13 following: ‘‘; or (5) any cleanup, removal, site prepa14 ration, rehabilitation of structures, or other activities

15 permitted under section 105(a)(27)’’.

Æ
No. 10-11296.

#### Riley *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
048P16

#### Jamie Lee Stephenson v. State of North Carolina; Thomas Locke, Superior Court Judge; Susan Doyle, District Attorney; Michelle Ball, Clerk of Court

Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Mandamus*

Denied
46354.

#### ARNOLD v. ARNOLD.

(377 SE2d 856)

Decided April 6, 1989.

*Frank E. Jenkins III, E. Gail Gunnells,*for appellant.

*Rosenzweig, Kam, Jones & McNabb, Joseph P. McNabb, Wood, Odom*& *Edge, Arthur B. Edge IV,*for appellee.

Smith, Justice.

We granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in *Arnold v. Arnold,*189 Ga. App. 101 (375 SE2d 225) (1988) to consider whether the family immunity doctrine is applicable. We hold that it is not and we affirm.

“Every person may recover for torts committed to himself, his wife, his child, his ward, or his servant.” OCGA § 51-1-9. Emancipated children may sue their parents and parents may sue their emancipated children. *Davis v. Cox,*131 Ga. App. 611, 614 (206 SE2d 655) (1974). The appellant is an emancipated child who is being sued by a sibling.1 The doctrine of family immunity is not involved.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 Actions between siblings who are minors have been uniformly allowed. Prosser & Keeton on Torts (5th ed. 1984) § 122 at 906.
Exhibit 10.5
 Description of Compensation Payable to Non-Employee Directors
 American Greetings
 
    
    An annual board retainer fee of $70,000; and
    
    The Chair of the Nominating and Governance Committee to be paid an annual retainer fee
of $10,000, the Chair of the Compensation and Management Development Committee to be paid
an annual retainer fee of $15,000, and the Chair of the Audit Committee to be paid an
annual retainer fee of $20,000; and
    
    Non-chair members of the Nominating and Governance Committee and the Compensation and
Management Development Committee to be paid an annual retainer fee of $7,500, and
non-chair members of the Audit Committee to be paid an annual retainer fee of $10,000; and
    
    Options to purchase 7,500 Class A common shares per fiscal year;
    
    A grant of 1,875 Class A Restricted Stock Units per fiscal year; and
    
    Reimbursement of expenses related to attending Board and committee meetings.
#### § 109-43.302 Agency responsibility.
# Appendix B Mobile Budgets and Correspondence1 

### Gowins, John (EEC)

From: Fred Durham [FDURHAM@wvdep.org] Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 9:07 AM To: Gowins, John (EPPC DEP DAQ) Subject: Fwd: NOx insignificance - Parkersburg Attachments: draft_parkersburg_insign.doc

John: It is Region 3 that is saying the rationale looks sufficient. No letter but an e-mail. Fred

>>> < Goold.Megan@epamail.epa.gov > 4/3/2008 2:46 PM >>>

Fred,

Good news - Looks like OTAQ agrees that this area qualifies for insignificance under 40 CFR 93.109(k) for regional on-road NOx in your PM2.5 attainment SIP.

Attached is the document with comments included. In addition, the spreadsheet that you attached should be included in the SIP submission. The part of the narrative that discu sses the decision factors in 93.109 (k) says that NOx motor vehicle emi ssions are less than 10% (p. 4) isn't as clear as it could be. That fact is true for the base year and not the attainment year. But it's the attainment year where the percentage is relevant. It would be more clear to say something along the lines of: "motor vehicle emissions in WV are less than 10% in the base year, 2002; and they decline from 2002 to 2009. For more information refer to the table in appendix X."

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Megan

(See attached file: draft_parkersburg_insign.doc)

_________________________________________ Megan S. Goold Environmental Scientist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III Air Protection Division (3AP23) Energy, Radiation & Indoor Environment Branch 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-814-2027
407P15

#### State v. Larry Ricardo Tart

Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Notice of Appeal

Dismissed
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-352-000]

Take notice that on June 16, 2000, Gulf States Transmission Corporation (Gulf States), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the revised tariff sheets listed in Appendix A to the filing. Gulf States proposes that the tariff sheets be made effective on July 1, 2000.

Gulf States states this filing is made to reflect changes relating to the implementation of a new Interactive Internet Website.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-16138 Filed 6-26-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Argued May *4,*

decided May 26, 1908.

#### WHEELER COUNTY *v.*KEETON.

[95 Pac. 821.]

From Wheeler: William L. Bradshaw, Judge.

For appellant there was a brief over the names of *John A. Collier,*District Attorney, *Bela S. Huntington*and *Hollis S. Wilson,*with an oral argument by *Mr. Huntington.*

*22For respondent there was a brief over the names of *Jay Bowerman, William H. Wilson, R. Butler*and *Hamilton H. Hendricks,*with oral arguments by *Mr. Wilson*and *Mr. Hendricks.*

Mr. Justice Moore

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action by Wheeler County against P. L. Keeton, its former sheriff, and the sureties on 'his official bond, to recover $1,707.97, which sum was received by him as taxes during a term of office, commencing on the first Monday in July, 1904, and for which money he failed to account. The facts involved herein are the same as stated in a case entitled as above, in which an opinion was this day handed down (52 Or. 16: 95 Pac. 819), except that there is a difference as to the parties co-defendants, amount of money in controversy, and term of the sheriff’s office.

As the conclusion reached in the case mentioned is controlling herein, it follows that the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.