alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 302-8.2 What is the purpose of extended storage? The purpose of extended storage is to assist in protecting personal items when you are: ( a ) Authorized a temporary change of station (TCS) under § 302-3.400 of this chapter;
( b ) Assigned to isolated locations in CONUS to which you cannot take or at which you are unable to use your HHG and personal effects because of the absence of residence quarters at that location;
( c ) Assigned OCONUS when: ( 1 ) The official station is one to which you cannot take or at which you are unable to use your HHG and your personal effects; or
( 2 ) The head of your agency authorizes storage of your HHG is in the public interest or is more economical than transporting; or
( d ) Storage is necessary during school recess for DoDDS teachers.
[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12255, Feb. 16, 2024]
§ 105-60.700 Submitting an appeal. ( a ) A requester may appeal any adverse determination (denial of access to records, denial of fee waiver, or denial of expedited processing, etc.) to the GSA FOIA Requester Service Center which is designated as the agency's FOIA Appeals Office.
( b ) The appeal shall include: ( 1 ) The FOIAonline tracking number;
( 2 ) The basis for disagreement with GSA's adverse determination that is being appealed; and
( 3 ) A brief statement of the reasons he or she thinks GSA should release the records or provide expedited processing and enclose copies of the initial request and denial.
( c ) The requester may submit the appeal electronically to *GSA.FOIA@gsa.gov*. The requester should mark the subject line of the electronic transmission, “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.” In the alternative, the requester may submit an appeal via facsimile to 202-501-2727, or via US mail to U.S. General Services Administration, FOIA Requester Service Center (H3), 1800 F Street NW, 7308, Washington, DC 20405-0001. If the appeal is submitted via US mail, the appeal letter must include the words “Freedom of Information Act Appeal” on both the face of the appeal letter and on the envelope. Failure to follow these procedures will delay processing of the appeal.
( d ) The GSA FOIA Officer must receive the requester's appeal no later than 90 calendar days after receipt by the requester of any adverse determination by GSA with respect to the FOIA request. GSA has 20 business days after receipt of a proper appeal to issue a response to the requester's appeal. The 20-workday time limit shall not begin until the GSA FOIA Officer receives the appeal. As noted in § 105.60.305 of this part, the GSA FOIA Officer may extend this time limit in unusual circumstances. GSA will process appeals of denials of expedited processing as soon as possible after receiving them. The GSA FOIA Officer may also extend the time limit in the event of unusual circumstances occur during the processing of appeals as well.
501 P.2d 416

#### James C. WALSH, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondent, American Buslines, Inc., Respondent Employer, State Compensation Fund, Respondent Carrier.

No. 1 CA-IC 682.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department A.

Sept. 28, 1972.

Lawrence Ollason, Tucson, for petitioner.

William C. Wahl, Jr., Chief Counsel, Industrial Commission of Arizona, Phoenix, for respondent.

Robert K. Park, Chief Counsel, State Compensation Fund, by Dee-Dee Samet, Phoenix, for respondent employer and carrier.

DONOFRIO, Judge.

This case is before the Court on a writ of certiorari to review the lawfulness of an award of The Industrial Commission of Arizona.

Petitioner suffered a stroke on April 21, 1969 while he was delivering brochures in the course of his employment. On June 18, 1970 a notice of claim status denying the claim was issued. Subsequently hearings were held on October 26, 1970 and March 30, 1971 from which an award denying compensation was issued on April 9, 1971. On June 10, 1971 the Industrial Commission affirmed the decision of the hearing officer. This appeal followed.

It is well settled that the petitioner must prove by expert medical testimony the compensability of his claim if the causal relationship between the injury sustained and the employment is not clearly apparent to a layman. Lowry v. Industrial Commission, 92 Ariz. 222, 375 P.2d 572 (1962); Gore v. Industrial Commission, 15 Ariz.App. 347, 488 P.2d 984 (1971).

In the instant case two physicians and two osteopaths testified during the course of the two hearings. Upon careful review of the record we are of the opinion that this case does not present a medical conflict in the evidence. Rather, the evidence points only to the conclusion that the stroke was unrelated to the job, notwithstanding the testimony from the petitioner that he oftentime worked long hours under tension. The uncontroverted evidence by the two physicians was that the stroke suffered by petitioner was caused by a degenerative arteriosclerotic condition. Likewise, the two osteopaths were unable to link the stroke to the employment activity *241within the bounds of reasonable medical probability.

The award is reasonably supported by the evidence.

Affirmed.

STEVENS, P. J., and CASE, J., concur.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

In Re E.G.A., a Minor. 

JEAN-CHRISTOPHE ALBOU, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ANA-MARIA TORO 

Respondent 

Civil Action No. 22-23128-cv-RNS 

STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties and their 

respective counsel that the above-captioned action is voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, 

against the Respondent pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each 

party to bear their respective attorney’s fees and costs. 

Jointly submitted January 5, 2023. 

Paul A. McKenna, Esq. 

Paul A. McKenna & Associates, P.A. 

7300 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 200 

Miami, FL 33138 

Telephone: (305) 662-9908 

paul@pmcklaw.com 

litigations@pmcklaw.com

/s/ Paul McKenna 

Paul McKenna, Esq. 

FBN 348481 

Attorneys for Petitioner

Ronald H. Kauffman, Esq. 

Ronald H. Kauffman, P.A. 

2 South Biscayne Boulevard 

Suite 3400 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: (305) 374-0937 

Email: ron@rhkauffman.com 

 

/s/ Ronald H. Kauffman 

Ronald H. Kauffman, Esq. 

FBN 970743 

Attorneys for Respondent

 

Case 1:22-cv-23128-RNS Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2023 Page 1 of 1
Hillsborough

No. 78-289

#### The State of New Hampshire v. Francis G. Holland

March 30, 1979

*Thomas D. Rath,*attorney general *(Anne E. Cagwin*orally), for the State.

*Francis G. Holland,*of Nashua, pro se.

Memorandum Opinion

Defendant, who was convicted in the Milford District Court of speeding, for violating RSA 262-A:54, appealed to the Hillsborough County Superior Court where he pleaded nolo contendere. He was fined $20 and a ten percent penalty charge in accordance with RSA 105-A:8 (Supp. 1977) was added. He excepted to the imposition of the penalty charge and his exception was transferred by *Cann,*J.

In *Opinion of the Justices,*117 N.H. 382, 373 A.2d 640 (1977), the justices of this court were of the opinion that the proposed bill which became RSA ch. 105-A was constitutional. Although we did not have the benefit at that time of the adversary process, nothing in defend*201ant’s arguments leads the court to a contrary conclusion. Adding the ten percent charge does nothing more than increase all fines covered by the Act. Nothing prohibits the State from allocating whatever portion of a fine it may wish to a particular purpose. RSA 502-A:8. Thus, any part of all fines which go to the State could be allocated for the purpose of the Police Standards and Training Council. RSA 502-A:8. RSA ch. 105-A simply by implication increases all fines imposed under the statutes and all maximum fines (including those in RSA 651:2 IV) by ten percent and allocates the increase to the stated purpose. Collecting the fines plus the increase does not require the judiciary to perform an executive function any more than does collecting the fine without the increase. Nor does RSA 618:14, which prohibits the assessment of costs against respondents in criminal cases, prohibit the legislature from enacting RSA 105-A:8 (Supp. 1977).

*Exception overruled.*
IIA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4177

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 25 (legislative day, MAY 16), 1994

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

AN ACT

To designate the United States Post Office building located

at 1601 Highway 35 in Middletown, New Jersey, as

the ‘‘Candace White Post Office’’.

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 United States Post Office building located at

5 1601 Highway 35 in Middletown, New Jersey, shall be

6 known and designated as the ‘‘Candace White Post

7 Office’’.

8 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

10 paper, or other record of the United States to the building
2

HR 4177 RFS

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

2 to the Candace White Post Office.

Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
#### § 109-50.401 Definitions.

As used in this subpart, the following definitions apply;

*Contractor* means the operator of the mixed facility.

*DOE property* means DOE-owned personal property located in a mixed facility.

*Mixed facility* means a partly DOE-owned and partly contractor-owned facility. For purposes of this subpart, however, this definition does not apply to such a facility operated by an educational or other nonprofit institution under a basic research contract with DOE.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Pursuant to Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, the VicePresident, Treasurer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of AmericanScience & Engineering, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certifythat to the undersigned’s knowledge:

 

1.             the Company’s Report onForm 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (“10-Q/A”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and 

 

2.             theinformation contained in the Company’s 10-Q/A being filed fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of theCompany.

 

Date: February15, 2005 

 
|     | /s/ Kenneth  J. Galaznik                |
|----------|-----------------------------------------|
|     | Kenneth J.  Galaznik                    |
| * * | *Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer* |

 

 

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to AmericanScience & Engineering, Inc. and will be retained by AmericanScience & Engineering, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 3, 2015

No. 04-15-00549-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.G. a Child,

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

Trial Court No. 2014-PA-01476

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal of the trial court’s order terminating appellant’s parental 

rights. The appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on November 2, 2015. On November 

2, 2015, appellant filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file the brief.

The disposition of this appeal is governed by the standards set forth in Rule 6.2 of the 

Texas Rules of Judicial Administration. TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2. Accordingly, this appeal is 

required to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal was 

filed. Id. 

The motion is GRANTED, and appellant’s brief must be filed no later than November 23, 

2015. Given the time constraints governing the disposition of this appeal, further requests for 

extensions of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 3rd day of November, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE> 16
                                                              EXHIBIT  11


                     ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION

        COMPUTATION OF FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            For the Nine Months Ended
                                                     September 30,          
                                              1996                  1995    
<S>                                         <C>                  <C>         
EARNINGS

Pro forma income (loss) applicable
 to common stock*                           $(1,181,694)         $  (137,427)

SHARES

Weighted average number of common
 shares outstanding                           3,490,238            3,078,738

Assuming conversion of options and warrants     597,934              788,057

    Pro forma shares                          4,088,172            3,866,795

    Fully diluted income (loss)
     per common share                       $      (.29)         $      (.16)


</TABLE>

*     Entire proceeds of assumed conversion of options were used to purchase
treasury shares; therefore, no adjustments are necessary in computing pro forma
loss applicable to common stock.


This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-B, Item
601(b)(11) although it is contrary to paragraph 40 of ABP Opinion No. 15
because it produces anti-dilutive results.



                                       Page 16
Adams, Kevin (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Dear Mr Adams, 

Penny Green [akemerald@starband.net] 

Saturday, July 17, 2010 4:44 PM 

Adams, Kevin (OST) 

Re: Carrier Selection Order at Lake Minchumina 

This is a personal comment from Tom and Penny Green as was our letter of JulylO,201O that in NO way shape 

or form represented a change in the earlier letter from the Home Owner's Association with the majority 

requesting Wright as the carrier. 

We are deeply sorry if this caused confusion on your part and we want the record corrected to reflect the July 

10,2010 letter as a PERSONAL one NOT representing the Home Owner's Association. We respectfully request 

that you honor the letter from the HomeOwner's as representing the community with the majority requesting 

Wright Air. 

Though we would gain personally by Warbelow's selection as others here would with Wright Air we deeply 

respect the governing body of the Home Owner's Association to represent this community in all matters 

concerned and in no way would we attempt to dilute that authority. 

Respectfully Submitted, Thomas and Penny Green 

local residents of Lake Minchumina 

On Fri, Ju116, 2010 at 8:35 AM, <Kevin.Adams@dot.gov> wrote: 

Hi, 

Attached is a hopefully self-explanatory order selecting Warbelow's for EAS at Lake Minchumina. As always, 

if you have any questions, please give me a call. 

Kevin 

202-366-104 7 

1
[Civ. No. 11123.

First Appellate District, Division Two.

November 28, 1939.]

#### GEO. STULZ, Appellant, v. GEORGE V. C. BACON, Respondent.

Guy P. Johnson for Appellant.

Charles M. Prey for Respondent.

STURTEVANT, J. —

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant to recover the amount due on an alleged judgment. The defendant appeared and filed a demurrer. In said demurrer he alleged that the complaint did *649not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against him; that the cause of action was barred by the provisions of subdivision 1 of section 336, subdivision 1 of section 337, and the provisions of section 343 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court made an order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. Prom the judgment entered thereon the plaintiff appealed.

The form of the complaint filed by the plaintiff was a model of good pleading. Therefore the first attack has no merit.  It is not controverted that subdivision 1 of section 336 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the statute of limitations applicable to an action on a judgment. However it is settled law that the statute of limitations begins to run only after the date the judgment becomes final. *(Feeney*v. *Hinckley,*134 Cal. 467 [66 Pac. 580, 86 Am. St. Rep. 290].) In the instant case the record shows that the judgment sued on was rendered May 19, 1933. . It was rendered by the Justice’s Court of Sacramento Township. The defendant in that action had thirty days after notice of the rendition of the judgment to file an appeal. Nothing to the contrary appearing we assume he had immediate notice of the rendition of the judgment. The time to appeal, therefore, expired June 18, 1933. That day was Sunday. The statute of limitations therefore commenced to run on June 19, 1933. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 12a.) The statutory period of five years (Code Civ. Proc., subd. 1, sec. 336) would expire June 19, 1938, but this action was commenced on June 15, 1938. It is clear, therefore, that the action was commenced in time and that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer.

The judgment appealed from is reversed.

Nourse, P. J., and Spence, J., concurred.
No. 10-11127.

#### Gunter *v.*Massachusetts.

Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16317]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE


Announcement of the Fall Unsolicited Grant Competition Grant 
Program

AGENCY: United States Institute of Peace.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Agency announces its Upcoming Fall Unsolicited Grant 
Deadline, which offers support for research, education and training, 
and the dissemination of information on international peace and 
conflict resolution.
    Deadline: October 1, 2000.

DATES: Application Material Available on Request. Receipt Date for 
Return of Application: October 1, 2000. Notification of Awards: 
February 2001.

ADDRESSES:  For Application Package: United States Institute of Peace, 
Grant Program, Unsolicited Grants, 1200 17th Street, NW, Suite 200, 
Washington, DC 20036-3011, (202) 429-3842 (phone), (202) 429-6063 
(fax), (202) 457-1719 (TTY), Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4e293c2f203a113e3c21293c2f230e3b3d273e60213c29"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bed9ccdfd0cae1ceccd1d9ccdfd3fecbcdd7ce90d1ccd9">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Applications also available on-line at our web site: www.usip.org.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  The Grant Program, Phone (202)-429-
3842.

    Dated: June 22, 2000.
Bernice J. Carney,
Director, Office of Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-16317 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-AR-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 102-85.120 What is shell Rent?

Shell Rent is that portion of GSA Rent charged for the building envelope and land. (See § 102-85.35 for the definition of building shell.)
#### § 105-8.151 Program accessibility: New construction and alterations.

Each building or part of a building that is constructed or altered by, on behalf of, of for the use of the agency shall be designed, constructed, or altered so as to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with handicaps. The definitions, requirements, and standards of the Architectural Barriers Act (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), as established in 41 CFR 101-19.600 to 101-19.607, apply to buildings covered by this section.
§ 50-203.6 Witnesses and subpoenas. ( a ) Witnesses shall be examined orally under oath except that for good and exceptional cause the administrative law judge may permit their testimony to be taken by deposition under oath.
( b ) The administrative law judge shall upon application by any party, and upon a showing of general relevance and reasonable scope of the evidence sought, issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of evidence under oath, including books, records, correspondence, or documents. Applications for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum shall specify the books, records, correspondence or other documents sought.
( c ) Witnesses summoned before the administrative law judge shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States, and witnesses whose depositions are taken and the persons taking the same shall severally be entitled to the same fees as are paid for like services in the courts of the United States. Witness fees and mileage shall be paid by the party at whose instance the witnesses appear, and the person taking the depositions shall be paid by the party at whose instance the depositions are taken.
[11 FR 14493, Dec. 18, 1946. Redesignated at 24 FR 10952, Dec. 30, 1959, and amended at 36 FR 289, Jan. 8, 1971; 61 FR 19987, May 3, 1996]
§ 105-68.200 What is a covered transaction? A covered transaction is a nonprocurement or procurement transaction that is subject to the prohibitions of this part. It may be a transaction at— ( a ) The primary tier, between a Federal agency and a person (see appendix to this part); or
( b ) A lower tier, between a participant in a covered transaction and another person.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, the Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of American Science & Engineering, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge:

 

1.               the Company’s Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010 (the “10-Q”) 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 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:   February 9, 2011 | /s/ Kenneth   J. Galaznik                                 |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          | Kenneth   J. Galaznik                                          |
|                          | Senior   Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to American Science & Engineering, Inc. and will be retained by American Science & Engineering, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
#### § 302-5.9 May my spouse and I perform separate househunting trips at Government expense?

Yes, however, your reimbursement will be limited to the cost that would have been incurred if you and your spouse had traveled together on one round trip.
#### § 302-12.7 What expenses will my agency pay if I use a relocation services company to ship household goods in excess of the maximum weight allowance?

If you use a relocation services company to ship HHG in excess of the maximum weight allowance, your agency will pay the portion of the fee attributable to 18,000 pounds net weight. You must pay the rest.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001. Redesignated by FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18343, Apr. 1, 2011]