alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 11-1116.

#### Salard, as Tutor, on Behalf of L. A. S. et al. *v.*Salard.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
137P16

#### State v. Reid Wilburn McLaughlin

1. Def’s Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA15-333)

1.—

2. Def’s PDR under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

2. Denied

3. State’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

3. Allowed

4. State’s Conditional PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

4. Dismissed as moot
Exhibit 23.4




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-07377) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plans, in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-53400) pertaining to the Special Purpose Stock Option Plan, in Registration Statement Form S-8 (N0. 333-73000) pertaining to the 2001 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-73002) pertaining to the 2000 Stock Option Plan, in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-152706) pertaining to the SPAR Group, Inc. 2008 Stock Compensation Plan and in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-72998) pertaining to the 2001 Consultant Stock Purchase Plan of SPAR Group, Inc. and with Respect to the December 31, 2009 consolidated financial statements of SPAR Group, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K), for the year ended December 31, 2009 of our report dated February 17, 2009 with respect to the financial statements of UAB SPAR RRS Baltic, as of December 31, 2008 and for the year ended December 31, 2008.






/s/ UAB “Rezultatas”









Vilnius, Lithuania


March 23, 2009





Ex-4
Hillsborough

No. 82-054

#### Isabelle Jacques *& a.*v. Lou-Anne Paquin

October 12, 1982

*Christy & Tessier,*of Manchester *(Scott F. Innes*on the brief, and *Robert Christy*orally), for the plaintiffs.

*Law Offices of Robert A. Backus,*of Manchester *(Elizabeth Cazden*on the brief and orally), for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

The plaintiffs appeal a verdict in favor of the defendant after *869three days of jury trial in a rear-end automobile accident case. There having been no motion for a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the sole issue is whether the Trial Court *(Flynn,*J.) properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence and motion for a new trial.

The evidence was conflicting, but the jury did have evidence before it from which it could conclude that the defendant was not following the plaintiffs’ car too closely and that she was traveling at a very low and reasonable speed. Because there was evidence to support the trial judge’s decision to deny the plaintiffs’ motions, we will not overturn it. *Rogers v. Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H., 121*N.H. 956, 958, 437 A.2d 263, 265 (1981); *Gowen v. Brothers, 121*N.H. 377, 381, 430 A.2d 159, 161 (1981); *Kierstead v. Betley Chevrolet-Buick, Inc.,*118 N.H. 493, 496-97, 389 A.2d 429, 431-32 (1978).

*Affirmed.*

King, C.J., did not sit.
{"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":"21-114: In Re SK HYNIX INC.         [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"tKGD59XPtF\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/2-25-2021-21-114-in-re-sk-hynix-inc-order-21-114-order-2-25-2021_1739742\/\">21-114: In Re SK HYNIX INC.                  [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/2-25-2021-21-114-in-re-sk-hynix-inc-order-21-114-order-2-25-2021_1739742\/embed\/#?secret=tKGD59XPtF\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“21-114: In Re SK HYNIX INC.                  [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"tKGD59XPtF\" 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: In Re SK HYNIX INC. [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 21-114 Origin: RIT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER00-2566-001

      ( print page 41452)    
Take notice that on June 27, 2000, New England Power Company, Massachusetts Electric Company and The Narragansett Electric Company submit for filing an amendment to their May 19, 2000 filing in this docket. The amendment consists of a revised Attachment E to the May 19 filing deleting a reference to Eastern Edison Company, Rate Schedule No. 58 in the Notice of Succession for Massachusetts Electric Company.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before July 10, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-222 for asssistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-16841 Filed 7-3-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# Professor Chen's Paper Selected for CyCon U.S. 2017

/ Published Oct. 12, 2017

CyCon U.S. 2017 Program Chairs selected Dr. Jim Chen's paper entitled "Take the Reins of Cyber Deterrence" for publication by IEEE and presentation at the 2017 International Conference on Cyber Conflict U.S. (CyCon U.S.), which will take place on 7-8 Nov 2017 at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington DC. Professor Chen's presentation is scheduled in the Cyber Policy Paper Track, held from 3:00 PM to 4:15 PM on Tuesday, 7 Nov 2017.

CLICK HERE FOR THE LINK TO THE CONFERENCE AGENDA
§ 400.6 Distribution of grant funds. ( a ) *Funding allocation.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section— ( 1 ) Grant funds for each State that meets the certification requirements set forth in § 400.4 will be allocated— ( i ) 50 percent in the ratio which the population of the State bears to the total population of all the States, as shown by the latest available Federal census; and
( ii ) 50 percent in the ratio which the public road mileage in each State bears to the total public road mileage in all States, as shown by the latest available Federal Highway Administration data.
( 2 ) Grant funds for each Tribal Organization that meets the certification requirements set forth in § 400.4 will be allocated— ( i ) 50 percent in the ratio to which the population of the Tribal Organization bears to the total population of all Tribal Organizations, as determined by the most recent population data on American Indian/Alaska Native Reservation of Statistical Area; and
( ii ) 50 percent in the ratio which the public road mileage in each Tribal Organization bears to the total public road mileage in tribal areas, using the most recent national tribal transportation facility inventory data.
( 3 ) *Supplemental project budgets.* As set forth in § 400.4(a)(3) and (b)(3), the ICO reserves the right to allocate additional funds based on supplemental project budgets.
( b ) ( 1 ) *Minimum distribution.* The distribution to each qualifying State under paragraph (b) of this section shall not be less than $500,000, except that the distribution to American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands shall not be less than $250,000.
( 2 ) *Tribal Organization set-aside.* Up to 2 percent of grant funds available under this part will be set aside for distribution to qualifying Tribal Organizations for a 911 grant. The distribution to each qualifying Tribal Organization shall not be more than $250,000. Any remaining funds after distribution to qualifying Tribal Organizations under this subparagraph will be released for distribution to the States consistent with paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) *Additional notices of funding opportunity.* Grant funds that are not distributed under paragraph (a) of this section may be made available to States and Tribal Organizations through subsequent Notices of Funding Opportunity.
[83 FR 38059, Aug. 3, 2018, as amended at 83 FR 40156, Aug. 14, 2018]
MAY 29, 2012

No. 11-99.

#### Holder, Attorney General *v.*Mojica. *1019Holder, Attorney General *v.*Parra Camacho. Holder, Attorney General *v.*Becerra. Holder, Attorney General *v.*Pimentel-Ornelas.

*1018C. A. 9th Cir.;

*1019No. 11-103.

No. 11-104.

No. 11-831.

C. A. 9th Cir. Reported below: 412 Fed. Appx. 32;

C. A. 9th Cir. Reported below: 411 Fed. Appx. 67; and

C. A. 9th Cir. Reported below: 432 Fed. Appx. 681. Certiorari granted, judgments vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration in light of *Holder*v. *Martinez Gutierrez, ante,*p. 583.
043P16

#### State v. Peter Michael Vallejo

Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-388)

Denied
U.S. Department of T ransportation Federal Aviation Administration



### MAR 

## 252016

Mr. Brian Richardet Textron Aviation, Inc. One Cessna Boulevard Wichita, Kansas 67215 Dear Mr. Richardet: Transport Airplane Directorate 1601 Lind Avenue , S
.W
. Renton , Washington 98057-3356

We have received your petition letter dated March 7, 2016, requesting partial relieffrom § 25.809(a) ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations. This exemption, ifgranted, would provide relieffrom the requirement for a means to permit viewing ofthe likely areas of evacuee ground contact prior to opening the type III overwing exit on Cessna Model 700 airplanes. This request was posted to the Department ofTransportation's Federal Docket Management System (at Regulations.gov) on March 11,2016, and has been assigned Docket No. FAA20 16-4919. We are in the process ofreviewing your request. We will contact you ifwe need additional information. Ifyou have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please contact Mr. Alan Sinclair at (425) 227-2195, or by e-mail at Alan.Sinclair@faa.gov.

Deana M. Stedman Transport Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service
{"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":"21-1070: NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS v. ACCORD HEALTHCARE 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=\"ZgwuUZHuUh\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-21-2022-21-1070-novartis-pharmaceuticals-v-accord-healthcare-inc-opinion-21-1070-opinion-6-21-2022_1967294\/\">21-1070: NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS v. ACCORD HEALTHCARE INC. [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-21-2022-21-1070-novartis-pharmaceuticals-v-accord-healthcare-inc-opinion-21-1070-opinion-6-21-2022_1967294\/embed\/#?secret=ZgwuUZHuUh\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“21-1070: NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS v. ACCORD HEALTHCARE INC. [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"ZgwuUZHuUh\" 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: NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS v. ACCORD HEALTHCARE INC. [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 21-1070 Origin: DCT Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
dvn-ex1034_1987.htm



Exhibit 10.34

Amendment 2016-4

to the

devon energy corporation

incentive savings plan

The Devon Energy Corporation Incentive Savings Plan (the "Plan") is amended, effective as of December 31, 2016, as follows:

1.A new Paragraph (5) is added to Section 4.01(a) of the Plan ("Elections") after the current Paragraph (4) (which begins "Each Eligible Employee as of February 19, 2016 . . .") and immediately before the current Paragraph (5) (which begins "Each Participant may irrevocably designate . . ."), such new Paragraph to read as follows:

"(5)Each Eligible Employee as of the Determination Date who (A) is determined to have elected to contribute to the Plan as Salary Deferrals and/or Roth Contributions a percentage of Compensation (including the separate election, if any, for annual discretionary performance bonus amounts) that is less than the maximum percentage of Matching Contributions for which the Eligible Employee is eligible under Section 4.05(a) and (B) does not otherwise make an affirmative election to the contrary, shall be deemed to have made an election, effective the first pay period in January of the following Plan Year (starting with the Plan Year beginning on January 1, 2017), to increase the reduction in his or her Compensation (up to up to a total maximum of 3%) and, effective in February of that Plan Year, if the Participant would still be contributing less than the maximum Matching Contributions, his annual discretionary performance bonus (up to up to a total maximum of 6%), in aggregate by such amount as is necessary for the Eligible Employee to receive the maximum Matching Contribution for which the Eligible Employee would be eligible under Section 4.05(a) and to contribute such amount to the Plan as Salary Deferrals (or as Roth 401(k) Contributions if the Eligible Employee has an election in effect as of the Determination Date to designate 100% of his Salary Deferrals as Roth 401(k) Contributions); provided, however, that if the Eligible Employee is expected to reach the limit described under Section 5.01(a) before December 31 of the Plan Year for which the deemed election is made, the Eligible Employee shall not be deemed to have made an election to change his contribution percentages under this Paragraph.  All determinations made under this Paragraph shall be made by the Committee or its delegate, in accordance with uniform and nondiscriminatory procedures.

(A)For purposes of this Paragraph, "Determination Date" means the date determined by the Committee or its delegate and applied to all Participants each Plan Year. "

[remainder of page intentionally blank]

 

1



DB1/ 90054581.2

 

 

 
 


 

In witness whereof, Devon Energy Corporation (acting through its authorized delegate) has caused this Amendment 2016-4 to the Devon Energy Corporation Incentive Savings Plan to be executed this 20th day of December 2016.

DEVON ENERGY CORPORATION

 

By:  /s/ Tana K. Cashion______________________
Name:  Tana K. Cashion
Title:  Senior Vice President, Human Resources

 

[Signature Page to Amendment 2016-4 

to the Devon Energy Corporation Incentive Savings Plan]



DB1/ 90054581.2
#### Miller, Appellant, *v.*City Ice and Fuel Company et al.

Argued October 3, 1949.

Before Maxey, C. J., Drew, Linn, Patterson, Stearne and Jones, JJ.

*Glair D. Moss,*for appellant.

*183
      *J. Thomas Hoffman,*with him A. *W. McCandless*and *Stone é McCandless,*for appellees.

November 14, 1949:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Patterson,

This was an action in trespass to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of falling on an accumulation of ice and snow on the sidewalk adjacent to the building of Federal Cold Storage Company, located at the northeast corner of Penn Avenue and Fifteenth Street, in the City of Pittsburgh. At the close of plaintiff’s evidence the trial judge entered a compulsory non-suit, which the court *en banc*refused to take off, and this appeal followed.

While there was proof of an accumulation of ice and snow on the sidewalk, the evidence failed to establish that it was the cause of the fall. On the contrary, the testimony of appellant himself reveals that he fell as a result of the general icy condition of the crosswalk as he was proceeding from the northwest to the northeast corner of the intersection. He was asked to identify on a photograph the place where he slipped and indicated a point on the crosswalk several feet west of the curb line. According to his own testimony he slid continuously from that point “up over the curb stone” until he fell at a point on the sidewalk eight to ten feet east of the curb line. When asked whether he continued to slip from the time he started to slide, he replied, “My feet slipped a little bit, then I tried to catch myself and. then I fell down, continuously fell, one solid flop.” Despite persistent questioning by his counsel, appellant failed to testify that the condition of the sidewalk was the cause of his loss of equilibrium, and he was the only witness to testify as to the manner of occurrence of his fall.

On this state of the proofs the compulsory nonsuit was properly entered. Mere proof of an accumulation *184of ice and snow on the sidewalk is not sufficient to establish liability. To permit a finding of actionable negligence on the part of the owner or occupant of the abutting property the plaintiff must not only sustain the burden of proving an accumulation of sufficient size to constitute an unreasonable obstruction to travel, with actual or constructive notice to the owner or occupant, but must go further and show that the dangerous accumulation was the cause of the fall: *Davis v. Potter,*340 Pa. 485, 487, 17 A. 2d 338; *Zieg v. Pittsburgh,*348 Pa. 155, 157, 34 A. 2d 511; *Hulings v. Pittsburgh,*150 Pa. Superior Ct. 338, 340, 28 A. 2d 359. This, burden the appellant failed to meet and therefore he would not be entitled to recover.

Judgment affirmed.
No. 11-1136.

#### Alger v. Pennsylvania.

Super. Ct. Pa. Cer-tiorari denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

MONICA JONES, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE 

CORPORATION; WELLS FARGO 

MASTER SERVICING; MORTGAGE 

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION 

SYSTEMS, INC.; WELLS FARGO 

BANK, N.A.; AMERICAN HOME 

MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC.; AND 

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 

AS TRUSTEE FOR TBW MORTGAGEBACKED TRUST MORTGAGE PASS 

THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 

2006-3, 

Respondents. 

No. 69380 

FILED 

JAN 1 3 2016 

TPA& K. UNDEMAN 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

BY • 

DEPUTY CLERK 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This is a proper person appeal from a district court order 

expunging a lis pendens. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; 

William D. Kephart, Judge. 

Our review of the documents transmitted to this court 

pursuant to NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. In particular, this 

court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal only when the appeal is 

authorized by statute or court rule. Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels, 

100 Nev. 207, 678 P.2d 1152 (1984). No statute or court rule authorizes an 

appeal from an order expunging a lis pendens. See NRAP 3A(b) (listing 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A e, 

f 'frISP.gitt 

lc -altos 
J. 

Douglas 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0i 1947A 

orders and judgments from which an appeal may be taken). Accordingly, 

as we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 

cc: Hon. William D. Kephart, District Judge 

Monica Jones 

Wright, Finlay & Zak, II,P/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

2
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.279 Limitation of matters to be reviewed. ( a ) Upon review of any initial decision, the Commission may, in its discretion, limit the issues to be reviewed to those findings and conclusions to which exceptions have been filed, or to those findings and conclusions specified in the Commission's order of review issued pursuant to § 1.276(b).
( b ) No party may file an exception to the presiding officer's ruling that all or part of the hearing be conducted and resolved on a written record, unless that party previously filed an interlocutory motion to request an oral hearing in accordance with § 1.376.
[85 FR 63179, Oct. 6, 2020]