alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

Denver Service Center
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

HASSAN BIN ATTASH, 

Petitioner,

v.

BARACK H. OBAMA, et al., 

Respondents.

Civil Action No. 05-1592 (RCL) 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Respondents’ Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to 

Comply with this Court’s Order of July 24, 2009, it is hereby 

ORDERED that Respondents’ motion is GRANTED. It is further 

ORDERED that Respondents have until August 6, 2009 to produce the approximately 

230 responsive documents that Respondents have located in the consolidated assemblages of the 

files of JIG and OARDEC and have already submitted for clearance. It is further 

ORDERED that Respondents have until August 17, 2009 to implement a more robust 

search capability for the Task Force database. It is further 

ORDERED that Respondents have until August 31, 2009 to complete targeted searches 

for responsive Task Force information and submit all responsive material to the clearance team. 

8/3/2009

 Date Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth

 United States District Judge 

/s/
No. 11-154.

#### Martinez *v.*Kurt.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.
AUGUSTA 

STATE OF M~E 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

ANGUS S. KING, JR. 

GOVERNOR 

TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

RE: 

MEMORANDUM 

Board of Environmental Protection 

~d, Bureau of Air Quality Control 

January 15, 1998 

Adoption of Chapter 112 Bulk Terminal Petroleum Liquid 

EDWARD 0. SULLIV A.'l 

COMMISSIONER 

Transfer Requirements rule 

************************************************************************ 

Statutory and Regulatory Reference: 

Title 38 M.R.S.A. Section 585-A, Establishment of Standards - This statutory section 

gives the Board authority to control the emission of volatile organic compounds 

necessary to meet federal and state ozone standards. 

Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency is required to regulate 

emissions of 189 hazardous air pollutants of air toxics. The EPA is required to develop 

standards that will require the application of maximum achievable control technology 

(MACT). Section 7 of this rule adopts by reference the "National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Gasoline Distribution (Stage I) and Marine Tank Vessel 

Loading Operations". 

Location/ Applicability: 

Statewide 

Description: 

This amendment incorporates by reference the "National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Gasoline Distribution (Stage I) and Marine Tank Vessel 

Loading Operations". All existing and new bulk terminals that are major sources (those 

that emit 10 tons/year or more of a hazardous air pollutant (HAPs) or 25 tons/year or 

more of a combination of HAPs) are subject to these two emission standards. The 

standard requires emissions from the vapor collection and processing systems due to the 

Serving Maine People & Protecting Their Environment 

PORTLAND BANGOR PRESQUE ISLE 

17 STATE HOUSE STATION 312 CANCO ROAD 

PORTLAND. ME 04103 

1C6 HOGAN ROAD 

8AAGOA, ME 04401 

1235 CENTRAL DRIVE. St(;(WAY PARK 

PRESQUE ISLE, ME 04769 

(207) 822-6300 FAX: (207) 822-6303 (207) 941-4570 FAX: (207) 941-4584 (207) 764-0477 FAX: (207) 764-1507 AUGUSTA. MAINE 04333·00 17 

(207) 287-7688 FAX: (207) 287-7826 

OFFICE LOCATEOAT· RAY BUILDING, HOSPITAL STREET 
loading of gasoline cargo tanks be limited to 10 milligrams of total organic compound 

per liter of gasoline loaded. 

Environmental Issues: 

Volatile organic compounds contribute to ground-level ozone formation which can 

impair lung capacity and cause eye, nose, and throat irritation. The health effects of 

exposure to HAPs can include cancer, respiratory irritation and damage to the nervous 

system. 

Department Recommendation: 

The Department recommends the Board adopt Chapter 112 as amended. 

Estimated Time of Presentation: 

10 minutes 

2
No. 11-9628.

#### Delgado *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Comments on: 20-1754: ORLOSKI v. HHS [OPINION], Nonprecedential
#### SILAS A. UNDERHILL, Respondent, *v.*FRANK H. PHILLIPS, Appellant.

*Promissory note*— complaint *in action upon*— consideration *need, not be alleged.*

The omission of the words “for value received,” in a promissory note, is not material.

In an action upon such a note, it is not necessary to allege in the complaint, that there was any consideration therefor.

A description of the note is sufficient without an averment of the consideration.

Appeal from an order of tbe County Court of Kings county, overruling a demurrer to tbe complaint herein.

Tbe action was upon a promissory note. Tbe defendant demurred, *592on the ground that there was no allegation in the complaint showing any consideration for the note, and because it did not appear therefrom that the note contained any words expressing a consideration.

*G. B. Va/n Wa/rt,*for the appellant.

If a written contract be defective in its specification, it must be declared on according to its legal effect, and the deficiency supplied by the proper averments. *('Osborn*v. *La/wrmoe,*9 Wend., *135; Ooonl/y*v. *Anderson,*1 Hill, 519 ; *GrammAs*v. *Olarh,*8 Cow., 35.)

*8. A. Underhill,*respondent, in person.

A promissory note imports a consideration, and it is unnecessary to state any in the pleading or to prove any upon the trial in the first instance. *(Bank of Troy*v. *Topping,*13 Wend., 551; *Goshen Twrnpihe, eta.,*v. *Tlv/rti/n,*9 Johns., 211; *Sa/wyer*v. *McTouth,*16 Barb., 350 ; *Powers*v. *French,*1 Hun, 582.) It was not necessary that the complaint should allege that the note was delivered. *(Ohwrohill*v. *Gardner,*1 Term it., 596; *Peets*v. *Bratt,*6 Barb., 662; *Keteltas*v. *Myers,*19 N. Y., 231.)

Gilbert, J.:

The instrument set forth in the complaint is a negotiable promissory note. (1B. S., 168, § 1.) In this State such a note imports a consideration. A description of the instrument is sufficient, without an averment of the consideration. No consideration need be proved on the trial, and none, therefore, need be alleged in the complaint. The omission of the words “ for value received ” in the note, is not material. (1 Chitty’s PL, 293, n. 1; *Kimball*v. *Huntington,*10 Wend., 675.)

The demurrer was properly overruled. Order affirmed, with costs'.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Gilbert and Dtktvtan, JJ.

Order overruling demurrer affirmed, with costs.
#### § 109-50.4800 Scope of subpart.

This subpart exhibits information referenced in the text of part 109-50 of this chapter that is not suitable for inclusion elsewhere in that part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
(THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND FROM CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS)
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,203
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  500,047
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    280,398
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               823,356
<PP&E>                                       3,552,936
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,678,288)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,880,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          734,111
<BONDS>                                        544,195
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,624
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,271,155
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,880,410
<SALES>                                      2,037,357
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,066,892
<CGS>                                        1,625,995
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  179,157
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               177,677
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,603
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 66,460
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,323
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             43,137
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    43,137
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 60-741.84 Severability.

Should a court of competent jurisdiction hold any provision(s) of this part to be invalid, such action will not affect any other provision of this part.

[88 FR 51737, Aug. 4, 2023]
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DE CEMBER 18, 2014

NO. 03

- 14

- 00428

- CV

Lakecroft, Ltd. and Western Hemisphere Investments Corp., Appellant s

v.

Randal H. Adams, Susan Adams, Hope Alcorta, Alfred Anderson, Janice An derson, Brian Ash, Elizabeth Ash, Bent Bean, Stacey Bean, James Brady, Richard Byrd, Krin Byrd, Donald Carberry, Marcia Carberry, Bertrand Chartier, Joyce Claytor, Edwin Coinson,

Denice Moran Coinson, Rocky Collette, Jennifer Collette, Sam Collette, Carol Ann Collette, Mike Crelin, Daniele Crelin, Henry W. De la Rosa, John Dettmer, Sally Dettmer, Melissa Duvall, Rachael V. East, Stephen Edlund, Christopher Ewing, Jack Fehrenbach, Ronald Fey, Grace Fey, Andrew T. Fiedler, Rhoda Fiedler, Donald Charles Flemin g, Fresh Start Builders, David Glasscock, Gerald Gueldner, John Gueldner, Geraldine Gueldner, William Hagerman, Dianne Hagerman, Harve John Hagerty, Jacqueline Harris
, Gary Holcomb, Lori Holcomb, Bill D. Hood, Dorothy Hood, John Hughes, Janice Hughes,

Carm en Kane, Leonard Tumolo, Timothy Keith, Deborah Keith, Randy Kerner, C ynthia Kerner, David Lewis, Lan Lewis, Lori K. Lindsay, Lisa F. Landford, Esther Lucio, William T. Maurer, Julie McCollum as Trustee of the Frederick G. McCollum and Julie A.

McCollum Re vocable Living Trust, Katherine McDaniel, Gary Mercer, Vivian Mae Merrit, Dalton Mewis

- Heddleston, Tami Mewis, Richard Miller, Jeanne Butler, Sharon Mooney, Terri Mooney, E.D. Morrison, Richard Morrison, Helen Elizabeth Morrison
, Kenneth W. Pape, Darlene P arsons, Larry Pratt, Robert Ragland, Bernard Charles Reck

and Anna Mari a Reck, co
- Trustees of the B ernard C. Reck and Anna M. Reck Revocable Living Trust, Rittiman R anches LLC, Paul Rohler, Jennifer Rohler, Megan Rutledge, Earl Schacherl, Janice Schacherl, Josef Scherm, Lilia Scherm, Dorothy Schroeder, Marcus Schulte, Cheryl Schulte, Michael R. Stewart, Karen Stewart, Barbara Stuart, Rick Sutton, Gabriela Sutton, Raul Tijerina, Nancy Talbot t , Rob Q. Talbott, Jeff Turpin, Glenn Wash, Keith Weidner, Sunda Wei dner, Ian Whitehead, David Willson, Phil Zaccaria, Terri

Zaccaria, Edward Zeigle, and Susan Zeigle
, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM 274TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This i s an appeal from the judgment signed by the district court on June 16, 2014. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible erro rin the district court’s judgment . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the district court’s judgment

. The

appellant s shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
FORM 17. Informal Reply Brief Form 17 (p. 1) 

July 2020

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

INFORMAL REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONER/APPELLANT

Case Number:

Short Case Caption:

Petitioner/Appellant:

Instructions: Read the Guide for Unrepresented Parties before completing this 

form. Answer the questions as best as you can. Attach additional pages as needed 

to answer the questions. This form and continuation pages may not exceed 15

pages.

You may attach other record material as an appendix. Any attached material 

should be referenced in answer to the below questions. Do not attach material 

already attached to your informal opening brief. Please redact (erase, cover, or 

otherwise make unreadable) social security numbers or comparable private 

personal identifiers that appear in any attachments you submit.

1. Have you received a copy of the respondent/appellee’s response brief?

Yes No

STOP: You may use this form to respond to arguments raised in the brief of 

respondent/appellee. If you have not received that brief, you may not file this 

form. Do not proceed or file this form if you answered “No.”

2. What are your arguments in response to the respondent/appellee?
FORM 17. Informal Reply Brief Form 17 (p. 2) 

July 2020

3. Are there other arguments you wish to make? Yes No

If yes, please state them. 

Date: _________________ Signature: 

 Name:
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.211 Service.

Except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, all pleadings filed in a hearing proceeding shall be served upon all other counsel in the proceeding or, if a party is not represented by counsel, then upon such party. All such papers shall be accompanied by proof of service. For provisions governing the manner of service, see § 1.47.

[29 FR 8219, June 30, 1964]
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4172

To amend the Small Business Act to increase authorization levels for the

small business development center program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 12, 1994

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

Committee on Small Business

A BILL

To amend the Small Business Act to increase authorization

levels for the small business development center program.

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION LEVELS FOR SMALL BUSI4 NESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER PROGRAM.

5 Section 21(a)(4) of the Small Business Act (15

6 U.S.C. 648(a)(4)) is amended by inserting after ‘‘a

7 $70,000,000 program’’ the following: ‘‘for fiscal year

8 1994, an $84,000,000 program for fiscal year 1995, a

9 $98,000,000 program for fiscal year 1996, a

10 $112,000,000 program for fiscal year 1997, a
2

•HR 4172 IH

1 $126,000,000 program for fiscal year 1998, and a

2 $140,000,000 program for fiscal year 1999’’.

Æ
Argued and submitted March 27,

affirmed June 21, 1995

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Mary C. Hurlburt, Claimant. Mary C. HURLBURT, *Petitioner, v.*TECTON LAMINATES CORP., and Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation, *Respondents.*

(WCB 91-12466; CA A85967)

897 P2d 347

Thomas O. Carter argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner.

Alexander D. Libmann, Senior Trial Counsel, Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondents.

Before Riggs, Presiding Judge, and Landau and Leeson, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*203PER CURIAM

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board, contending that the Board erred in affirming the referee’s order that failed to award her permanent and total disability. We affirm.

Claimant, who was 53 years old at the time of the hearing, injured her back at work in March 1989. She was treated with surgery in November 1989 and is presently treated with medication. Although the parties agree that claimant is not completely disabled from a physical standpoint, claimant contends that when her medical restrictions are considered in combination with her age, limited education and extensive use of medication, the finding is required that she is not capable of regularly performing work at a gainful and suitable employment. *See Wilson v. Weyerhaeuser,*30 Or App 403, 567 P2d 567 (1977) (a combination of medical and nonmedical factors together may lead to the finding that the claimant is permanently and totally disabled under the “odd lot” doctrine); *Wilson v. Banister Pipeline,*70 Or App 699, 690 P2d 1080 (1984) (same).

The referee found, and claimant concedes, that claimant’s physical disability does not preclude her employment. Additionally, the referee found that claimant is vocationally able to perform work within her physical limitations. Those findings are supported by substantial evidence. Claimant asks us to look at the evidence and, essentially, to make new findings. That is beyond the scope of our review. ORS 656.298; ORS 183.482.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

The subsidiaries of the Company are:

 

**Elixir Gaming Technologies (Macau) Limited,**a company incorporated in Macau

 

**Elixir Gaming Technologies (Hong Kong) Limited,**a company incorporated in Hong Kong

 

**Elixir Gaming Technologies Philippines Inc.** (formerly known as VendingData Philippines, Inc.), a****company incorporated in the Republic of the Philippines

 

**Elixir Gaming Technologies (Cambodia) Inc**., a company incorporated in Cambodia

 

**Dolphin Products Pty Ltd**, a company incorporated in Australia

 

**Dolphin Advanced Technologies, Pty. Ltd.** a company incorporated in Australia

 

**Dreamworld (Takeo) Investment Holding Limited**, a company incorporated in Cambodia

 

**Dreamworld Leisure (Cambodia) Limited**, a company incorporated in Cambodia

 

**Dreamworld Leisure (Kampot) Limited**, a company incorporated in Cambodia

 

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.1951 Offset against tax refunds.

The Commission will take action to effect administrative offset against tax refunds due to debtors under 26 U.S.C. 6402, in accordance with the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3720A and Treasury Department regulations.
KPMG (LOGO)

Suite 2700, Independent Square
One Independent Drive
P.O. Box 190
Jacksonville, FL 32201-0190


                          Independent Auditors' Report


The Board of Directors
HomeSide Lending, Inc.:

We have  examined  management's  assertion  about  HomeSide  Lending,  Inc.  and
subsidiaries'  (the Company's)  compliance with the minimum servicing  standards
set forth in the  Mortgage  Bankers  Association  of  America's  Uniform  Single
Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers and that the Company had in effect a
fidelity bond and errors and  omissions  policy in the amount of $76 million and
$20  million,  respectively,  as of and for the year ended  September  30, 1999,
included in the  accompanying  management  assertion  letter dated  December 17,
1999.  Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those minimum
servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's
assertion about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination  on the  Company's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards.

In  our  opinion,   management's  assertion  that  HomeSide  Lending,  Inc.  and
subsidiaries  has  complied in all  material  respects  with the  aforementioned
minimum  servicing  standards and that the Company had in effect a fidelity bond
and errors and  omissions  policy in the amount of $76 million and $20  million,
respectively,  as of and for the year ended September 30, 1999 is fairly stated,
in all material respects.

December 17, 1999

KPMG LLP
#### § 304-3.9 May I use other than coach class accommodations on common carriers when a non-Federal source pays in full for my common carrier transportation expenses to attend a meeting?

Yes, you may use other than coach class accommodations on common carriers if you meet one of the criteria contained in § 301-10.103 of this subtitle, and are authorized to do so by your agency in accordance with § 304-5.5 of this chapter.

[FTR Case 2020-300-1, 87 FR 55707, Sept. 12, 2022]
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Neurological Sciences and Disorders B, June 22, 2000, 8 am to June 23, 2000, 5 pm, Radisson Barcelo Hotel, 2121 P St., NW, Washington, DC 20037 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on April 26, 2000, 65 FR 24493.                

The meeting will be held on June 22, 2000, 8 am to 5 pm. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: June 20, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-16621  Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 22, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-20228

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

VIDAL MATEO, also known as Luis Feliciano

Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-521-1

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Vidal Mateo appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine,

possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms

of cocaine, and possession with intent to distribute more than

500 grams of cocaine. He argues that the district court abused

its discretion by allowing the testimony of eight Government

witnesses in light of the fact that the prosecutor failed to
No. 03-20228

-2-

comply with discovery provisions contained in FED. R. CRIM.

PROC. 16. He further argues that the cumulative effect of the

alleged errors warrants reversal.

Our review of the record discloses no errors that warrant

reversal. See United States v. Doucette, 979 F.2d 1042, 1044-45

(5th Cir. 1992). Because Mateo has shown no error, his

cumulative-error contention is without merit. See United States

v. Neal, 27 F.3d 1035, 1052 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly,

Mateo’s conviction is AFFIRMED.