alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 302-3.228 Is my dependent who turned 21 while overseas entitled to return travel to my place of actual residence at the expense of the Government?

Your dependent who turned 21 while overseas is entitled to return travel to your place of actual residence at the expense of the Government only if your dependent traveled overseas as your dependent under your TA, but not beyond the end of your current agreed tour of duty.
#### § 128-1.8007 Reporting.

The Department shall file reports on the execution of the Executive Order as required under the Order, and as required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4225 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4225

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent fraudulent claims 
                     for the earned income credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 14, 1994

  Mr. Lehman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent fraudulent claims 
                     for the earned income credit.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 32 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to earned income credit) is 
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
    ``(k) Verification of Taxpayer Identification Numbers.--The 
Secretary shall not allow the credit under subsection (a) to any 
taxpayer until the Secretary has verified that the numbers set forth on 
the return claiming the credit as--
            ``(1) the taxpayer identification number of the taxpayer, 
        or
            ``(2) the taxpayer identification numbers of 1 or more 
        qualifying children,
are valid.''

                                 <all>
```
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

WINET LABS LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2022-1081

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois in No. 1:20-cv-01094, Senior 

Judge Harry D. Leinenweber.

______________________

Decided: September 12, 2022

______________________

MATTHEW MICHAEL WAWRZYN, Wawrzyn LLC, Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

 STEPHEN MAXWELL HANKINS, Riley Safer Holmes & 

Cancila LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by LOUIS A. KLAPP, MICHAEL 

HARRINGTON FLECK, Chicago, IL.

______________________

Before DYK, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 22-1081 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 09/12/2022
2 WINET LABS LLC v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC

PER CURIAM.

The district court dismissed this case for lack of standing without specifying whether the dismissal was with or 

without prejudice. The parties agree that the dismissal 

must be without prejudice. This court understands the district court’s dismissal of this case to have been without 

prejudice. On this basis, we affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss this case for lack of standing.

Appellant also challenges the district court’s decision 

to award attorney fees, a decision that is not final and appealable until the award has been quantified. Because the 

award has not been quantified, we lack jurisdiction. Falana v. Kent State Univ., 669 F.3d 1349, 1360–61 (Fed. Cir. 

2012). We therefore dismiss this portion of the appeal. 

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART

Case: 22-1081 Document: 34 Page: 2 Filed: 09/12/2022
#### IN THE MATTER OF JACK LASONDE.

(Supreme Court Disciplinary No. 740)

(390 SE2d 594)

Decided February 22, 1990

Reconsideration denied March 12, 1990.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Paula J. Frederick, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

Per curiam.

Respondent Jack Lasonde was found guilty of violating Standards 44, 63, and 68 of the State Bar of Georgia Rule 4-102.

Based upon these violations, the Review Panel of the State Bar of Georgia Disciplinary Board recommends that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Georgia.

Based upon the facts and circumstances in this case, the Court modifies the recommendation of the Review Panel and directs that, beginning March 15, 1990, Jack Lasonde be suspended from the practice of law in the State of Georgia for a period of two (2) years.

Respondent is further directed to notify his clients of this suspension and take all actions necessary to protect their interests.

*All the Justices concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                            1764
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            2441
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      75112
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            4756
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              4625
<LOANS>                                         118203
<ALLOWANCE>                                        572
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  204017
<DEPOSITS>                                      131740
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               5138
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                       67093
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  204017
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   8610
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 4075
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   465
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 13150
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                6930
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                6950
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             6200
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       20
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  55
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   3035
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3333
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        3333
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2148
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .270
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .270
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   7.250
<LOANS-NON>                                        717
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   1490
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   552
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  572
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            572
        

</TABLE>
S89A0323.

#### EVANS v. BOWERS et al.

(385 SE2d 412)

Decided September 28, 1989.

Richard Evans, *pro se.*

*Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, William B. Hill, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, William F. Amideo, Assistant Attorney General, Karen K. Karabinos,*for appellees.

Marshall, Chief Justice.

This appeal is dismissed for failure of the appellant to comply with the order of this Court directing the filing of briefs (which include the enumeration of errors) by August 31, 1989. *Crane v. State,*249 Ga. 501 (292 SE2d 67) (1982) and cits.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.282 Final decision of the Commission. ( a ) After opportunity has been afforded for the filing of proposed findings of fact and conclusions, exceptions, supporting statements, briefs, and for the holding of oral argument as provided in this subpart, the Commission will issue a final decision in each case in which an initial decision has not become final.
( b ) The final decision shall contain: ( 1 ) Findings of fact and conclusions, as well as the reasons or basis therefor, upon all the material issues of fact, law or discretion presented on the record;
( 2 ) Rulings on each relevant and material exception filed; the Commission will deny irrelevant exceptions, or those which are not of decisional significance, without a specific statement of reasons prescribed by paragraph (b)(1) of this section; and
( 3 ) The appropriate rule or order and the sanction, relief or denial thereof.
(Sec. 8(b), 60 Stat. 2422; 5 U.S.C. 1007(b))
[28 FR 12425, Nov. 22, 1963, as amended at 41 FR 14873, Apr. 8, 1976; 76 FR 70908, Nov. 16, 2011]
No. 11-9638.

#### Jackson *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 25, 2023 No. 04-22-00567-CR Alexis MORGANFIELD , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR1804 Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd, Judge Presiding 

### C O R R E C T E D O R D E R Appellant’s brief was due on January 13, 2023. Appellant has filed a third motion for extension of time and seeks a twenty-four-hour extension. After consideration, we GRANT the motion. Appellant’s brief, filed on January 14, 2023, is hereby deemed timely filed.
It is so ORDERED on January 25, 2023. PER CURIAM
ATTESTED TO:__________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, CLERK OF COURT
§ 304-3.14 May a non-Federal source pay for my spouse to accompany me to a meeting? Yes, a non-Federal source may pay for your spouse to accompany you when it is in the interest of and authorized in advance by your agency. All limitations and requirements of this part apply to the acceptance of payment from a non-Federal source for travel expenses and/or agency reimbursement of travel expenses for your accompanying spouse. Your agency may determine that your spouse's presence at an event is in the interest of the agency if your spouse will— ( a ) Support the mission of your agency or substantially assist you in carrying out your official duties;
( b ) Attend a ceremony at which you will receive an award or honorary degree; or
( c ) Participate in substantive programs related to the agency's programs or operations.
No. 11-9462.

#### Alvarado *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"17-1968: ROBINSON v. WILKIE [OPINION], Precedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"gMOaSRjyMU\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-04-2018-17-1968-robinson-v-wilkie-opinion-17-1968-opinion-10-4-2018\/\">17-1968: ROBINSON v. WILKIE [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-04-2018-17-1968-robinson-v-wilkie-opinion-17-1968-opinion-10-4-2018\/embed\/#?secret=gMOaSRjyMU\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“17-1968: ROBINSON v. WILKIE [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"gMOaSRjyMU\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: ROBINSON v. WILKIE [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 17-1968 Origin: CAVC Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001052013
<NAME> COMFORCE OPERATING, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           5,330
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   95,905
<ALLOWANCES>                                       850
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               105,122
<PP&E>                                          17,674
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,673
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 261,291
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,192
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           164
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,583
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   261,291
<SALES>                                        224,563
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               224,563
<CGS>                                          179,089
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  214,051
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (34)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,483
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (937)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       544
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,481)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,481)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)


</TABLE>
#### § 101.311 Equal employment opportunities.

Equal opportunities in employment must be afforded by all common carrier licensees and all Local Multipoint Distribution Service and 24 GHz Service licensees in accordance with the provisions of § 21.307 of this chapter.

[65 FR 59359, Oct. 5, 2000]
eworld_ex104.htm

EXHIBIT 10.4

 

Trademark Office of The State Administration For Industry & Commerce of the People's Republic of China

 


	Address: No. 1, South Chama St, Xicheng Qu, Beijing 	Zip Code: 100055
	
 
	
 




 


	
9550 Flair Dr. #308

 

El Monte, Ca 91731

 

E-World USA Holding, Inc. 
		
File Number:

 

TMCZ20683305ZCSL01




 


	
Application Date: July 18, 2016 
	Application No: 20683305



 


	
Trademark Registration Application Acceptance Notice

 

E-World USA Holding, Inc:

 

According to <Trademark Law> and <Regulation for the Implementation of the Trademark>, we received and accept your application as below.

 

Category: Fifth

 

Hereby Noticed.

 



 

September 25, 2016




 

Shenzhen Qianna Patent Agency LTD.

 

Notice: This notice only indicates the trademark office has already received the application of the said trademark, but not for approval of the trademark registration.

 

Current page/Total Pages: 1/1

 

[The notice of Acceptance of Trademark, trademark can be used, After registration, it can add R]
No. 11-5269.

#### Hurdle *v.*Texas.

Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-rari denied.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ESLI JOSEPH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D23-609

[May 11, 2023]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Elizabeth Anne 

Scherer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 06-016527-CF-10A.

Esli Joseph, Raiford, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. 

Docket No. FAA-2016-4262 

(Civil Penalty Action 

WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT 

11 

Pursuant to the provisions of 14 C.F.R. §13.215, Complainant, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby ~vithdraws its Complaint dated March 9, 2016. 

Respectfully submitted this 25'h day in April, 2016. 

~ ,?"e ~' ~---~~./1-~ey 

hr 

ANDREA MICHELLE HARPER 

Senior Attorney 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Enforcement Division, Southern Team 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appearance In the 

Matter of United Parcel Service, FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-4262, via overnight mail and 

facsimile to: 

Winton E. Miller, Esq. 

Frost Brown Todd LLC 

400 West Market Street, 3 2nd Floor 

Louisville, KY 40202-3363 

TEL (502) 568-0296 

FAX (502) 581-1087 

Meaghan Goodwin Boyd, Esq. 

Alston & Bird LLP 

1201 W. Peachtree Street 

Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3424 

TEL (404) 881-7245 

FAX (404) 253-8510 

Paul Alp, Esq. 

Crowell & Moring LLP 

I 001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington DC 20004-2595 

TEL (202) 624-2500 

FAX (202) 628-5116 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M -20 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL (202) 366-6941 

FAX (202) 366-7536 

and the original and one copy to: 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2WIOOO 

2 
Program Analyst 

Date 

3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-2213

DAVID P. FARLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CHARLES F. MCDARRIS, Attorney for C.A.S.A.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CA-01-580-5-BO)

Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 21, 2002

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David P. Farley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

David P. Farley, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district

court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.

2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000) and

denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinions and find that this appeal

is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See Farley v. McDarris, No. CA-01-580-5-BO

(E.D.N.C. Aug. 20 & Sept. 25, 2001). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
S89A0433.

#### HOWARD v. SAVANNAH COLLEGE OF ART & DESIGN, INC. et al.

(387 SE2d 332)

Weltner, Justice.

A newspaper reporter refused to answer certain questions propounded to her during a deposition taken in the course of civil litigation. Her refusal was based upon her assertion of a purported “qualified reporter’s privilege.”

The trial court held: “Georgia has no statutory qualified re*796porter’s privilege. . . . [She] has no qualified reporter’s privilege under the law of this state.”

Decided January 11, 1990

Reconsideration denied February 6, 1990.

*Hull, Towill, Norman & Barrett, David E. Hudson, James B. Ellington,*for appellant.

*Ranitz, Mahoney, Forbes & Coolidge, Morton G. Forbes, Catherine M. Bowman, Middleton & Anderson, Susan E. Shelley, Neely & Player, Taylor Tapley Daly, Leigh M. Wilco,*for appellees.

*Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, Terrence B. Adamson, Peter C. Can-field, Carolyn Y. Forrest,*amicus curiae.

This holding was correct. *Vaughn v. State,*259 Ga. 325 (381 SE2d 30) (1989).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Exhibit
      23.1





CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Forms S-8 (Nos.333-80450, 333-91863 and 333-126924) and Forms S-3 (Nos.
      333-128160-01, 333-39365-01, 333-3526-01, and 33-99736-01) of Tanger Properties
      Limited Partnership of our report dated March 3, 2006 relating to the financial
      statements, financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the
      effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness
      of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form
      10-K.







/s/
      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


PricewaterhouseCoopers
      LLP


Raleigh,
      North Carolina


March
      6,
      2006
#### §§ 20.7-20.9 [Reserved]
# Comments on: 22-1642: CARAVAN CANOPY INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. Z-SHADE CO., LTD. [ORDER], Nonprecedential