alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 I n The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09

- 1 5

- 00453

- CR



### ________________

CHRISTOPHER LEE MUSSLEWHITE , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 1A District Court

Jasper County, Texas

Trial Cause No . 12240JD

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant Christopher Lee Musslewhite guilty of burglary of a

building, and the trial court assessed punishment at fifteen years of confinement

and a fine of $1000

. 1

Musslewhite ’ s appellate counsel filed a brief that present s counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and conclude s the appeal is frivolous. See

Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

1 The trial court punished Musslewhite as a n habitual felony offender.2 Crim. App. 1978). On July 28, 2016 , we granted an extension of time for

Musslewhite to file a pro se brief. We rece ived no response from Musslewhite

.

W e have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s

conclusion th a t no arguable issues support the appeal. Therefore, we find it

unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re

- brief the appeal. Cf.

Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We a ffirm the trial

court’s judgment. 2

AFFIRMED.

________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on October 28, 2016

Opinion Delivered N ovember 16, 2016

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen , C.J., Kreger and Horton

, JJ.

2 Musslewhite ma y challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
1220 L Street, Northwest Thomas M. Gray Washington, DC 20005-4070 Regulat ory & Scientific Affairs

Tel 202-682-8479

Fax 202-682-8031 E-mail grayt@api.org

May 6, 2010

Karl Simon Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mail Code 6406J Washington, DC 20460

RE: CAA Section 211(b) Fuels and Fuel Additives Health Effects Testing Regulation: Third Draft Final Report: Gasoline MTBE Vapor Condensate : A Tw o-Generation Whole-Body Inhalation Reproduction Toxicity Study in Rats (Study No. 00-4208)

Dear Mr. Simon:

This letter is to inform you that the American Petrol eum Institute (API), on behalf of the Section 211(b) Research Group submitted the BG with MTBE Two Generation draft 3 report to EPA. The cover letter is dated May 04, 2010. The submission earlier th is week did not include the required Reviewer Checklist. The CD in this mailing includes all of the documents from the May 04, 2010 CD plus the Checklist. Please replace the May 04, 2010 CD with the new CD dated May 06, 2010. Please note: Draft 2 was not submitted; draft 3 is the second submission to EPA.

The CD documents are:

• Third Draft Final Report: Gasoline MTBE Vapor Condensate: A Two-Generation WholeBody Inhalation Reproduction Toxicity Study in Rats (Study No. 00-4208) (4 Volumes)

• Reviewer Checklist

• May 04, 2010 Cover letter

• May 06, 2010 Cover letter

Regards,

Thomas M. Gray

cc: Joe Sopata, EPA (letter only)
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.8.1
AMENDMENT DATED DECEMBER 7, 2005 TO THE
 TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC.
 DEFERRED PLAN FOR DIRECTOR FEES
     Pursuant to the provisions of Article VII thereof, the Trinity Industries, Inc. Deferred Plan for Director Fees (the “Plan”) is hereby amended effective as of December 7, 2005 in the following respects only:
     FIRST: The third sentence of the first paragraph of Article II of the Plan is amended by restatement in its entirety to read as follows:
Sums credited to the Account will accrue an interest equivalent from the date they are credited to the Account at a rate equal to the annual LIBOR rate plus 6 points, determined as of the first business day following each Adjustment Date or such other annual rate as determined by the Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors prior to the beginning of each Annual Period; provided that any such determination shall be limited by, and made in accordance with, Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the guidance issued thereunder.
     SECOND: A new Article XII is added to read in its entirety as follows:
XII
 ELECTION TO TERMINATE PARTICIPATION IN THE PLAN
     Notwithstanding the provisions of Article IV, the Company, in its sole and unfettered discretion, may provide a Participant with the right, exercisable at any time on or before December 28, 2005, to terminate his or her participation in the Plan with respect to all deferred amounts held in his or her Account under the Plan as of December 31, 2004, together with interest, income, and other allocations of earnings after said date and receive an immediate single lump sum distribution of all such deferred amounts held in his or her Account under the Plan. The election and corresponding distribution is intended to comply with the election and distribution provisions of Notice 2005-1, Q&A 20, as published by the Internal Revenue Service. A Participant’s election to terminate his or her participation in the Plan shall become effective upon filing with the Company a written election form provided by the Company.
 










 
    











 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed this 7th day of December, 2005.
	
						
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC.
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	By:
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	Vice President and Secretary
Proposed Revisions to Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters

 Public Hearing, Boston, MA -- February 26, 2014

Speaker List

Last Name First Name Affiliation

Goldman Jack Hearth Patio & Barbecue Association

Carroll Ryan Hearth Patio & Barbecue Association

Suuberg Martin Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

Seidman Nancy National Association of Clean Air Agencies

Klein Mark Innovative Hearth Products

Liu Owen Environmental Defense 

Miller Claire Toxics Action Center

Hedrick Jennifer Pellet Fuels Institute

Moore Frank Hardy Manufacturing Co., Inc.

Kuhfahl David Hearthstone Stoves

Perkins Chelsea Clean Air Council

Seyler Jeff American Lung Association

Aho Patricia Commissioner, Maine Department of Environmental Protection

Nanasi Yvonne Moms Clean Air Force New Hampshire

Feen Bob Feen's Country Living, Fitchburg, MA

Crouch John Hearth Patio & Barbecue Association

Haggard Calvin Breckwell

Vogelzang Steve Vogelzang International

Williams Paul U.S. Stove Company

Ackerly John Alliance for Green Heat

Miller Edward American Lung Association

Barry Brandon Vogelzang International

Fitzgerald Mike New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services

Niebling Charles New England Wood Pellet/Biomass Thermal Energy Council

Hannah David Chimney Sweep

Rector Lisa NESCAUM-Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management

Hallowell Jeff ClearStak LLC

Wiberg Chris Timber Products Inspection

Alderman Nancy Environment and Human Health

Voorhees John Consultant

Seymour Joseph Biomass Thermal Energy Council

Pirolli Richard Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection

Bonar Ray Industrial Chimney Company, Inc.

Allan Barbara Massachusetts Leadership Board of the American Lung Association

Steinert John Dirigo Laboratories, Inc.

Gagner Chuck Northwestern Manufacturing

Dircks Peter Hearth & Home Technologies

Henry Dan 5G3 Consulting

Nelson Michael Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Mears David Commissioner, Vermont Dept of Environmental Conservation
Proposed Revisions to Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters

 Public Hearing, Boston, MA -- February 26, 2014

Speaker List

Last Name First Name Affiliation

Berry Tom U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy's Office (Vermont)

Hussong James Kozy Heat

Remole Tim Representative, Missouri House of Representatives

Watson Brett Jøtul North America, President

Purinton Roger Jøtul North America

Morrissey Thomas Woodstock Soapstone Company, Inc.

Elliott Mike Central New England Chimney Sweeps

Bushway Stephen Masonry Heater Association of North America

Poulin Bruce Janco Classic Wood Boiker

Tinnemore Rod Washington State Department of Ecology

Kelly Benjamin Earth Outdoor Wood Furnaces

Meeker John DBA WoodKiln

Dover Dustin AgFuel Energy Systems

Biber Joe Preston Trading Post

Carroll Allen Applied Ceramics, Inc. and The Catalytic Hearth Coalition

Barden Albert Maine Wood Heat Company

Podrecca Chris Chimney Sweep Professionals

Neufeld Chris Blaze King Industries

Nichols Scott Tarm Biomass
PUBLIC LAW 112–162—AUG. 10, 2012 126 STAT. 1273 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3772: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012): 

June 26, 28, considered and passed House. 

Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 112–162 

112th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 150 South 

Union Street in Canton, Mississippi, as the ‘‘First Sergeant Landres Cheeks 

Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. FIRST SERGEANT LANDRES CHEEKS POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 150 South Union Street in Canton, Mississippi, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘First Sergeant Landres 

Cheeks Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘First Sergeant Landres Cheeks Post Office Building’’. 

Approved August 10, 2012. 

Aug. 10, 2012 

[H.R. 3772] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
{"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":"2018-1889: InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"qpIhZ14IHq\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/3-07-2019-2018-1889-invue-security-products-inc-v-mobile-tech-inc-audio-uploaded\/\">2018-1889: InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/3-07-2019-2018-1889-invue-security-products-inc-v-mobile-tech-inc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=qpIhZ14IHq\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2018-1889: InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"qpIhZ14IHq\" 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":"Oral argument audio posted: InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2018-1889 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
{"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":"20-2329: MODERNA TX, INC. v. ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION [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=\"KQ66CBdFB3\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-01-2021-20-2329-moderna-tx-inc-v-arbutus-biopharma-corporation-opinion-20-2329-opinion-12-1-2021_1872458\/\">20-2329: MODERNA TX, INC. v. ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-01-2021-20-2329-moderna-tx-inc-v-arbutus-biopharma-corporation-opinion-20-2329-opinion-12-1-2021_1872458\/embed\/#?secret=KQ66CBdFB3\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-2329: MODERNA TX, INC. v. ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"KQ66CBdFB3\" 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":"OPINION Posted: MODERNA TX, INC. v. ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-2329 Origin: PTO Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
{"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":"21-1834: PAVO SOLUTIONS LLC v. KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC. [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=\"ECSnJNoNh3\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-03-2022-21-1834-pavo-solutions-llc-v-kingston-technology-company-inc-opinion-21-1834-opinion-6-3-2022_1960213\/\">21-1834: PAVO SOLUTIONS LLC v. KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC. [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-03-2022-21-1834-pavo-solutions-llc-v-kingston-technology-company-inc-opinion-21-1834-opinion-6-3-2022_1960213\/embed\/#?secret=ECSnJNoNh3\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“21-1834: PAVO SOLUTIONS LLC v. KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC. [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"ECSnJNoNh3\" 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":"OPINION Posted: PAVO SOLUTIONS LLC v. KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC. [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 21-1834 Origin: DCT Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 418

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise taxes

on luxury items.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. TAUZIN 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 repeal

the excise taxes on luxury items.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF LUXURY EXCISE TAXES.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter A of chapter 31 of the

5 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain luxury

6 items) is hereby repealed.

7 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.—

8 (1) The material preceding paragraph (1) of

9 section 4221(a) of such Code is amended by striking

10 ‘‘subchapter A or C’’ and inserting ‘‘subchapter C’’.
2

•HR 418 IH

1 (2) Subsection (a) of section 4221 of such Code

2 is amended by striking the last sentence.

3 (3) Subsection (c) of section 4221 of such Code

4 is amended by striking ‘‘section 4001(c), 4002(b),

5 4003(c) 4004(a), or 4053(a)(6)’’ and inserting ‘‘sec6 tion 4053(a)(6)’’.

7 (4) Paragraph (1) of section 4221(d) of such

8 Code is amended by striking ‘‘subchapter A or C’’

9 and inserting ‘‘subchapter C’’.

10 (5) Subsection (d) of section 4222 of such Code

11 is amended by striking ‘‘section 4001(c), 4002(b),

12 4003(c) 4004(a), 4053(a)(6)’’ and inserting ‘‘section

13 4053(a)(6)’’.

14 (6) Section 4293 of such Code is amended by

15 striking ‘‘subchapter A of chapter 31,’’.

16 (7) The table of subchapters for chapter 31 of

17 such Code is amended by striking the item relating

18 to subchapter A.

19 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

20 this section shall take effect on January 1, 1993.

Æ
#### § 101.71 [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-28-1996
<CASH>                                           2,481
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      787
<ALLOWANCES>                                        50
<INVENTORY>                                        596
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,748
<PP&E>                                          88,905
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,479
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,803
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,749
<BONDS>                                         27,575
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,583
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,635
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,803
<SALES>                                          9,007
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,904
<CGS>                                            1,057
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,862
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 646
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (522)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (203)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (319)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     360
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        41
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1.356 Copies of exhibits.

No document or exhibit, or part thereof, shall be received as, or admitted in, evidence unless offered in duplicate. In addition, when exhibits of a documentary character are to be offered in evidence, copies shall be furnished to other counsel unless the presiding officer otherwise directs.
§ 302-8.400 What policies must we establish for the allowance for extended storage of HHG? You must establish policies and procedures governing this part including: ( a ) When you will authorize payment;
( b ) Who will determine whether payment is appropriate;
( c ) How and when reimbursements will be paid;
( d ) Which locations meet the criteria of this part for isolated official station at which conditions exist for allowing extended storage at Government expense for some or all employees;
( e ) Who will determine the duration and place of extended storage.