alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 0.561 Exemptions. The following systems of records are totally or partially exempt from subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4) (G), (H), and (I), and (f) of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552(a), and from §§ 0.554 through 0.557 of this subpart: ( a ) *System name.* Radio Operator Records—FCC/FOB-1. Parts of this system of records are exempt pursuant to Section (k)(2) of the Act because they contain investigatory material compiled solely for law enforcement purposes.
( b ) *System name.* Violators File (records kept on individuals who have been subjects of FCC field enforcement actions)—FCC/FOB-2. Parts of this system of records are EXEMPT because they are maintained as a protective service for individuals described in section 3056 of title 18, and because they are necessary for Commission employees to perform their duties, pursuant to sections (k) (1), (2), and (3) of the Act.
( c ) *System name.* Attorney Misconduct Files—FCC/OGC-2. This system of records is exempt pursuant to section 3(k)(2) of the Act because it is maintained for law enforcement purposes.
( d ) *System name.* Licensees or Unlicensed Persons Operating Radio Equipment Improperly—FCC. Parts of this system of records are exempt pursuant to section 3(k)(2) of the Act because they embody investigatory material compiled solely for law enforcement purposes.
( e ) *System name.* Personnel Investigation Records—FCC/Central-6. Parts of these systems of records are exempt because they emobdy investigatory material pursuant to sections 3(k)(2) and 3(k)(5) of the Act as applicable.
( f ) *System name.* Criminal Investigative Files—FCC/OIG-1. Compiled for the purpose of criminal investigations. This system of records is exempt pursuant to section (j)(2) of the Act because the records contain investigatory material compiled for criminal law enforcement purposes.
( g ) *System name.* General Investigative Files—FCC/OIG-2. Compiled for law enforcement purposes. This system of records is exempt pursuant to section (k)(2) of the Act because the records contain investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes.
(Secs. 4(i) and 303(n), Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 303(n); 47 CFR 0.231(d))
[40 FR 44512, Sept. 26, 1975, as amended at 49 FR 13369, Apr. 4, 1984; 58 FR 11549, Feb. 26, 1993]
§ 303-70.1 When must we authorize payment of expenses related to an employee's death? You must authorize payment of expenses when, at the time of death, the employee was: ( a ) On official travel status (away from the official station); or
( b ) Performing official duties OCONUS or in transit to or there from; or
( c ) Reassigned away from the employee's actual place of residence under a mandatory mobility agreement; or
( d ) In direct support of or directly related to a military operation, including a contingency operation, or an operation in response to an emergency declared by the President as provided in § 303-70.600; or
( e ) Performing official duties as determined by the head of agency and be a covered employee as provided in § 303-70.700.
[FTR Amdt. 2013-02, 78 FR 73106, Dec. 5, 2013, as amended by FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12256, Feb. 16, 2024]
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER D ENYING P ANEL R EHEARING

AND E N B ANC R ECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: In the Interest of K.P.M, a child; In the Interest of M.K.F. and S.M.F.,

children; In the Interest of S.L.F., A.D.T. and A.A.T., children;

Appellate case numbers: 01

- 17

- 00327

- CV; 01

- 17

- 00328

- CV; 01

- 17

- 00329

- CV

Trial court case numbers: 2016

- 16344; 2010

- 26768; 2015

- 43569

Trial court: 310th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: November 27, 2017

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that the motion for panel rehearing is DENIED GRANTED.

It is ordered that the motion for en banc reconsideration is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’ s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Keyes, Brown, and Lloyd

En banc Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Ju stices Jennings, K eyes, Higley,

Bland, Massengale, Brown, Lloyd, and Caughey

Date: January 9, 2018
Summary of Interagency Working Comments Received on Draft Rule under EO 

12866 Review. Subject to Further Policy Review 

Below is a summary of interagency comments received during EO 12866 review 

of the draft proposed rule establishing GHG emissions standards and fuel efficiency 

standards for medium and heavy duty trucks. They are for your consideration and subject 

to further policy review. 

Interagency commenters suggest the following edits to the welfare impacts discussion in 

the Preamble and RIA: 

“The costs estimates include the costs of holding other vehicle attributes, such as 

performance, constant. The 2010 light-duty GHG/CAFE rule, discussed that if other 

vehicle attributes are not held constant, then the cost estimates do not capture the impacts 

of these changes. The light duty rule also discussed other potential issues that could 

affect the calculation of the welfare impacts of these types of changes, such as behavioral 

issues affecting the demand for technology investments, investment horizon uncertainty, 

and discount rates. The agencies seek comments, including supporting data and

quantitative analyses, if possible, of any additional impacts of the proposed standards on 

vehicle attributes and performance, and other potential aspects that could positively or 

negatively affect the welfare implications of this rulemaking, not addressed in this 

analysis.”
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA PATENT 

FOUNDATION,

Appellant

v.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Appellee

______________________ 

2017-2467, 2018-1211

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 

IPR2016-00357, IPR2016-00358.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JOSEPH F. DEPUMPO, Shore Chan DePumpo LLP, Dallas, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by 

RUSSELL J. DEPALMA, ARI RAFILSON. 

 DAVID THOMAS POLLOCK, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by BRIAN 

D. ROCHE, Chicago, IL; JAMES CHRISTOPHER MARTIN, 

Pittsburgh, PA. 

 ______________________ 
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (WALLACH, LINN, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

 December 10, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 685 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 685

    To amend title II of the Social Security Act to ensure that the 
 receipts and disbursements of the Social Security trust funds are not 
                 included in a unified Federal budget.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 1999

Mr. Moore (for himself, Mr. Lucas of Kentucky, Mr. Shows, Mr. Hoeffel, 
     Mr. Capuano, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Ford, and Mr. DeFazio) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
 Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, 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 amend title II of the Social Security Act to ensure that the 
 receipts and disbursements of the Social Security trust funds are not 
                 included in a unified Federal budget.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS FROM THE 
              UNIFIED FEDERAL BUDGET.

    Section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) is amended 
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(n)(1) The receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and 
Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance 
Trust Fund (including taxes upon which any such receipts are based)--
            ``(A) shall not be included in the Federal budget baseline 
        for any fiscal year, and
            ``(B) shall not be counted as new budget authority, 
        outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of--
                    ``(i) offsetting any tax decrease, or
                    ``(ii) offsetting any spending increase.
    ``(2) Any official statement issued by the Office of Management and 
Budget or by the Congressional Budget Office of surplus or deficit 
totals of the budget of the United States Government as submitted by 
the President or of the surplus or deficit totals of the congressional 
budget, and any description of, or reference to, such totals in any 
official publication or material issued by either of such Offices, 
shall exclude the receipts and disbursements totals of the Federal Old-
Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability 
Insurance Trust Fund (including taxes upon which any such receipts are 
based).''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by this Act shall apply to fiscal years 
beginning on or after October 1, 2000.
                                 <all>
```
§ 50-205.2 Definitions. ( a ) *Act* means the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act.
( b ) *Secretary* means the Secretary of Labor.
( c ) *State agency* means any authority of a State government which is responsible for the enforcement of State laws or regulations prescribing safety and health standards for employees.
( d ) *Director* means the Director, Bureau of Labor Standards or his duly authorized representative.
(41 U.S.C. 40; 5 U.S.C. 556)
[27 FR 1270, Feb. 10, 1962, as amended at 32 FR 7704, May 26, 1967]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                                ANDERSEN GROUP, INC.
                        RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                       COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES
                           ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X   

THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE-MONTH PERIOD ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                               U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              NOV-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.00
<CASH>                                          2,475
<SECURITIES>                                    4,470
<RECEIVABLES>                                   3,963
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (199)
<INVENTORY>                                     7,518
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               18,996
<PP&E>                                         20,463
<DEPRECIATION>                                (11,491)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 35,786
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           7,807
<BONDS>                                         6,986
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           5,324
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                        2,103
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,498
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   35,786
<SALES>                                        19,253
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               18,393
<CGS>                                          12,452
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  19,464
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   75
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                599
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1071)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (375)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (696)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (696)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.53)

        

</TABLE>
354P15

#### State v. Christopher Mosby

Defs *Pro Se*Motion for Notice of Appeal for Discretionary Review (COAP15-597)

Dismissed
Exhibit 99.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wyeth (the "Company") on Form 10-Q
for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2002 (the "Report"), I, Kenneth J.
Martin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(1) The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: November 13, 2002

                                        By /s/  Kenneth J. Martin
                                           ---------------------------------
                                                Kenneth J. Martin
                                           Executive Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial Officer
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 432

To prohibit exports of unprocessed timber and wood chips to any country

that does not provide reciprocal access to its markets for finished wood

products and paper produced in the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

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

Committee on Foreign Affairs

A BILL

To prohibit exports of unprocessed timber and wood chips

to any country that does not provide reciprocal access

to its markets for finished wood products and paper

produced in the United States.

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON EXPORTS OF UNPROCESSED

4 TIMBER AND WOOD CHIPS TO CERTAIN

5 COUNTRIES.

6 No unprocessed timber or wood chips may be ex7 ported from the United States to any country that does
2

•HR 432 IH

1 not provide reciprocal access to its markets for finished

2 wood products and paper produced in the United States.

3 SEC. 2. EXERCISE OF AUTHORITIES.

4 The President shall exercise the authorities of the Ex5 port Administration Act of 1979 to carry out section 1.

6 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

7 As used in this Act—

8 (1) the term ‘‘unprocessed timber’’ has the

9 meaning given that term in section 493(7) of the

10 Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief

11 Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 620e(7));

12 (2) the term ‘‘finished wood products’’ means

13 wood products other than unprocessed timber; and

14 (3) the term ‘‘United States’’ includes any com15 monwealth, territory, or possession of the United

16 States.

Æ
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00858-CV

Raymond GONZALES,

Appellant

v.

DONALDSON VILLA 

DONALDSON VILLA APARTMENTS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 381824

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 4, 2013

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

On July 31, 2013, we dismissed this appeal for want of prosecution because appellant failed 

to timely file his brief or respond to our show cause order. On August 12, 2013, appellant filed a 

motion for rehearing, stating that he had been in jail during the relevant time period. After

requesting a response from appellee, we granted appellant’s motion for rehearing and withdrew 

our prior opinion and judgment. We reinstated the appeal on the docket of the court and ordered 

appellant to file his brief on or before October 16, 2013. When appellant failed to file his brief, we 

ordered appellant to file, on or before November 7, 2013, his appellant’s brief and a written 
04-12-00858-CV

response reasonably explaining (1) his failure to timely file the brief and (2) why appellee was not 

significantly injured by his failure to timely file a brief. We warned that if appellant failed to file 

a brief and the written response by the date ordered, we would dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary 

dismissal if appellant has failed to comply with a court order). Appellant has failed to respond to 

our order. We therefore dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.

PER CURIAM

- 2 -
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1.362 Production of statements.

After a witness is called and has given direct testimony in an oral hearing, and before he or she is excused, any party may move for the production of any statement of such witness, or part thereof, pertaining to his or her direct testimony, in possession of the party calling the witness, if such statement has been reduced to writing and signed or otherwise approved or adopted by the witness. Such motion shall be directed to the presiding officer. If the party declines to furnish the statement, the testimony of the witness pertaining to the requested statement shall be stricken.

[85 FR 63181, Oct. 6, 2020]
|   | (1) | The                  Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of                  the                  Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                March 14, 2007 |   |   |   | /s/                David A. Heaberlin  |
|-------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                                |   |   |   | DAVID                A. HEABERLIN      |
|                                |   |   |   | Chief                Financial Officer |
|                                |   |   |   | Principal                Financial and |
|                                |   |   |   | Accounting                Officer      |
#### § 109-38.402-50 Prompt disposal of replaced motor vehicles.

A replaced motor vehicle shall be removed from service and disposed of prior to or as soon as practicable after delivery of the replacement motor vehicle to avoid concurrent operation of both motor vehicles.
#### § 302-12.100 What are “relocation services”?

“Relocation services” are services provided by a private company under a contract with an agency to assist an employee who relocates. Examples include homesale programs, home marketing assistance, home finding assistance, and property management services.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended at 86 FR 73684, Dec. 28, 2021]
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

TELUS CORP., GOCO TECHNOLOGY, LP, 

Appellants

v.

LOGMEIN, INC., GOTO TECHNOLOGIES USA, 

INC, 

Appellees

______________________

2024-1150

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No.

91269331.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

February 16, 2024

Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: February 16, 2024

Case: 24-1150 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 02/16/2024
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4397 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4397

                 To permit refunding of certain bonds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 1994

 Mr. Taylor of North Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                 To permit refunding of certain bonds.

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

SECTION 1. REFUNDING OF CERTAIN BONDS PERMITTED.

    (a) In General.--The amendments made by section 10632 of the 
Revenue Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-203) shall not apply to any bond 
the proceeds of which are used exclusively to refund (including advance 
refund) a bond that was part of the $31,750,000 issue of Special 
Obligation Revenue Bonds Series 1986 issued by a recognized tribe of 
Indians between September 24, 1986 and September 26, 1986, (or to a 
bond that is part of a series of refundings of such bond); provided 
if--
            (1) the amount of the refunding bond does not exceed the 
        amount necessary to retire the refunded bond; and
            (2) the average maturity of the issue of which the 
        refunding bond is a part does not exceed the average maturity 
        of the original issue.
    (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall apply to bonds issued 
after the date of enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```