alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 64.1330 State review of payphone entry and exit regulations and public interest payphones. ( a ) Each state must review and remove any of its regulations applicable to payphones and payphone service providers that impose market entry or exit requirements.
( b ) Each state must ensure that access to dialtone, emergency calls, and telecommunications relay service calls for the hearing disabled is available from all payphones at no charge to the caller.
( c ) Each state must review its rules and policies to determine whether it has provided for public interest payphones consistent with applicable Commission guidelines, evaluate whether it needs to take measures to ensure that such payphones will continue to exist in light of the Commission's implementation of Section 276 of the Communications Act, and administer and fund such programs so that such payphones are supported fairly and equitably.
[61 FR 52323, Oct. 7, 1996, as amended at 71 FR 65751, Nov. 9, 2006]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 1998
10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          15,282
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           7,705
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   500
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    436,232
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        332,332
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,604
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 823,322
<DEPOSITS>                                     482,548
<SHORT-TERM>                                    95,785
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              9,013
<LONG-TERM>                                    126,760
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            89
<OTHER-SE>                                     109,216
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 823,322
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 25,465
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               29,740
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                55,205
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              18,676
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,639
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           23,566
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      360
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 508
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 15,580
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,400
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      12,400
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,242
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.23
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.10
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,873
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,322
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      128
<RECOVERIES>                                        50
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,604
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,604
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-41266

MARK LEROY O’BRYAN, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:97-CV-121

-------------------- April 12, 2000 Before REYNALDO G. GARZA , HIGGINBOTHAM, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *A certificate of appealability was granted to petitionerappellant Mark Leroy O’Bryan with respect to the issue of whether his trial counsel denied him his right to testify in his own defense at his criminal trial and as to whether the district court erred in denying O’Bryan an evidentiary hearing to develop this claim.

2Upon a careful review of the record and the briefs, we

AFFIRM the district court’s Order and Final Judgment dated September 25, 1998, denying O’Bryan’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, for essentially the reasons set forth by the magistrate judge and adopted by the district court. We further find that, as conducting an evidentiary hearing to explore the issue of whether trial counsel refused O’Bryan his right to testify would not have aided the district court in the resolution of his habeas petition, the district court did not abuse it’s discretion in denying O’Bryan’s request for an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****DNA for the defense bar[electronic resource] /**
 
SuDoc Number:J 28.2:D 44/5

Item Number:0718-A (online)
CGP systemNumber:000880823
 
Report | Appendices
 
May 5, 2020
#### § 68.1 Purpose.

The purpose of the rules and regulations in this part is to provide for uniform standards for the protection of the telephone network from harms caused by the connection of terminal equipment and associated wiring thereto, and for the compatibility of hearing aids and telephones so as to ensure that, to the fullest extent made possible by technology and medical science, people with hearing loss have equal access to the national telecommunications network, including advanced communications services.

[83 FR 8632, Feb. 28, 2018]
No. 11-9522.

#### Primas v. California.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
Exhibit 10.13  


April 20, 2006 


HSW
International, Inc.

One Capital City Plaza

3350 Peachtree Road, Suite 1500

Atlanta, GA 30326 



	RE:
	Trademark License Option




Gentlemen:



        This
letter agreement sets forth and confirms certain understandings between HSW International, Inc. (the "Corporation") and HowStuffWorks, Inc. ("HSW"). The Corporation
and HSW hereby agree that the Corporation shall have an option to an exclusive license from HSW for the Chinese and/or Portuguese translations of the HowStuffWorks name and associated marks for use in
digital and/or electronic medium only in the Territory (as defined in the Contribution Agreements entered into by the parties) and solely in connection with the Contributed Content (as defined in the
Contribution Agreements) in consideration for a licensing fee equal to the fair market value thereof. In the event that Corporation exercises this option, the parties will enter into a trademark
license agreement containing customary terms, conditions and limitations, as mutually agreed to by the parties in writing. Corporation will have the right to exercise such option for a period of
eighteen months from the date of Closing (as defined in the Merger Agreement). 


        This
letter agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, and each such counterpart hereof shall be deemed to be an original instrument, but all such counterparts together shall
constitute one agreement. Facsimile counterpart signatures to this letter shall be acceptable and binding. 


        Please
indicate below your agreement with the foregoing. 



	 	 	Yours truly,
	

 	
 	

HOWSTUFFWORKS, INC.
	

 	
 	

By:	

/s/  BRADLEY T. ZIMMER      

	 	 	Name:	Bradley T. Zimmer

	 	 	Title:	Asst. Secretary






Acknowledged
and agreed to this 20th day of April, 2006. 



	HSW INTERNATIONAL, INC.	 	 	 
	

By:	

/s/  BRADLEY T. ZIMMER      
	
 	

 	

 
	Name:	Bradley T. Zimmer
	 	 	 
	Title:	Secretary
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 150 (Friday, August 4, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 44347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6700]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Policy Statement No. ANE-2006-33.3-4]


Policy for Repair and Alteration of Rotating Turbine Engine-Life-
Limited Parts

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of issuance; policy statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces the 
availability of policy for the repair and alteration of rotating 
turbine engine-life-limited parts, Sec.  33.3.

DATES: The FAA issued policy statement number ANE-2006-33.3-4 on July 
27, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen M. Grant, FAA, Engine and 
Propeller Standards Staff, ANE-110, 12 New England Executive Park, 
Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#563d37243338783b7831243738221630373778313920"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c7aca6b5a2a9e9aae9a0b5a6a9b387a1a6a6e9a0a8b1">[email protected]</span></a>; telephone: (781) 
238-7119; fax: (781) 238-7199. The policy statement is available on the 
Internet at the following address: http://www.faa.gov. (click on the 
``Regulations and Policies'' tab, then ``Regulatory and Guidance 
Library''). If you do not have access to the Internet, you may request 
a copy of the policy by contacting the individual listed in this 
section.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published a notice in the Federal 
Register on October 13, 2005 (70 FR 59801) to announce the availability 
of the proposed policy and invite interested parties to comment.
    We have filed in the docket all comments we received, as well as a 
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel 
concerning this policy. The docket is available for public inspection. 
If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the above address 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

Background

    This policy memorandum provides guidance for determining the effect 
proposed repairs or alterations may have on rotating turbine engine-
life-limited parts. It also reaffirms guidance identified in Orders 
8110.37 and 8110.4 for coordinating the review of data for these 
proposed repairs and alterations. This policy does not create any new 
requirements.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704)

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 27, 2006.
Francis A. Favara,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 06-6700 Filed 8-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2014-NM-044-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
[Civ. No. 2662.

Second Appellate District.

April 11, 1918.]

#### CITY OF VENICE (a Municipal Corporation), et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al., Respondents.

Prohibition—Action to Enjoin Election—Moot Question.;—A proceeding to prohibit the superior court from proceeding further with the trial of an action in which the plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent a municipal corporation and its officers from submitting to the electors a question relating to the prohibition of the sale of alcoholic liquors has become moot and the proceeding will be dismissed where the alternative writ was ordered to be modified so as to permit the defendants to make findings of fact in said action and to make an amended return showing the findings of fact, and no amended return was made and the day of election had passed.

APPLICATION for a Writ of Prohibition originally made to the District Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District to prohibit the Superior Court from proceeding further with the trial of an action.

*758The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

C. W. Lyon, City Attorney, and S. W. Odell, for Petitioners.

Paul W. Schenck, and Richard Kittrelle, for Respondents.

THE COURT.

This is a proceeding by which it was sought to prohibit the defendant superior court from proceeding further with the trial of an action entitled Daniel W. Daniels *v.*City of Venice et al., pending in that court. That action was one in which the plaintiff Daniels sought to obtain a decree of injunction to prevent the city of Venice and its officers from submitting to the electors of the city at the general election to be held therein on the eighth day of April, 1918, a question relating to the prohibition of the sale of alcoholic liquors in that city. *

The defendants having filed their answer to the petition and made.their return to the alternative writ theretofore issued, the matter was submitted for decision on the twenty-ninth day of March, 1918. Later, on that same day, the justices of this court, being of the opinion that the court did not have before it facts sufficient for an appropriate decision upon the merits, ordered that the restraining order theretofore issued in this case be modified to this effect: That the defendants be permitted to make findings of fact in the case of Daniels *v.*City of Venice et al., and to make an amended return showing the said findings of fact.

No amended return has been made and the day of election in the city of Venice has passed. We may safely presume that there was no injunction against the submission of said question to the voters upon the subject above mentioned, and that the election has been held. Under these circumstances it is manifest that this has become a moot case and that no useful purpose can be subserved by its further prosecution. For these reasons, it is ordered that the alternative writ be discharged, and this proceeding is hereby dismissed.
_______________________________________________________________ 

Motion to Remand for Evidentiary Hearing 

Page 1 of 3 

No. W-08-00678-A 

EX PARTE § IN THE COURT OF 

 § CRIMINAL APPEALS 

WALTER DAVIS § OF TEXAS 

MOTION TO REMAND FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: 

 COMES NOW, WALTER DAVIS, Petitioner, and makes the 

following request for relief: 

1.

 This is a postconviction habeas corpus petition. Petitioner was 

convicted of the offense of burglary of a habitation with intent to 

commit a felony and punishment was assessed at 40 years 

imprisonment in cause no. F08-00678-U, pending in the 291st District 

Court of Dallas County, the Hon. Susan Hawk, then-judge, presiding. 

Petitioner originally filed his application pro-se, but later 

retained the undersigned counsel. The parties had been discussing a 

suitable date for a hearing on this application and had tentatively set a 

date of November 3, 2015. Unbeknownst to counsel, the clerk of the 

trial court on or about October 13, 2015 sent the file to this Court. 

WR-84,028-01

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 10/21/2015 2:00:43 PM

Accepted 10/21/2015 2:14:10 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

 RECEIVED COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 10/21/2015 ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK 
_______________________________________________________________

Motion to Remand for Evidentiary Hearing

Page 2 of 3

2.

The parties intended to conduct an evidentiary hearing in this 

case before a special master and intended that findings of fact and 

conclusions of law be prepared. No party instructed or asked the trial 

court to send the file to this Court before those events occurred. 

Therefore, Petitioner prays that the Court remand the case to the trial 

court so that an evidentiary hearing may be held and that the case 

proceed from there according to TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art 11.07.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that his motion be in all respects 

granted.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ John D. Nation

John D. Nation

State Bar No. 14819700

4925 Greenville Ave., Suite 200

Dallas, Texas 75206

214-800-5160

214-800-5161 (facsimile)

nationlawfirm@gmail.com

Faith S. Johnson

State Bar No. 18367550

5201 N. O’Connor Blvd., Suite 500

Irving, Texas 75039

972-401-3100

972-401-3105 (fax)

fjassociates@att.net
_______________________________________________________________

Motion to Remand for Evidentiary Hearing

Page 3 of 3

Lisa Fox

State Bar No. 07334950

6565 N. McArthur Blvd., Suite 225

Irving, Texas 75039

214-432-1095

972-401-3105 (fax)

Attorneys for Petitioner

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that I have served a true copy of this motion on 

Hon. Christine Womble, Assistant District Attorney, Dallas County, 

Frank Crowley Courts Bldg., 133 N. Riverfront, Dallas, Texas 75208, 

via the electronic filing system on this 21st day of October 2015.

/s/ John D. Nation

John D. Nation
§ 51.303 Preexisting agreements. ( a ) All interconnection agreements between an incumbent LEC and a telecommunications carrier, including those negotiated before February 8, 1996, shall be submitted by the parties to the appropriate state commission for approval pursuant to section 252(e) of the Act.
( b ) Interconnection agreements negotiated before February 8, 1996, between Class A carriers, as defined by § 32.11(a)(1) of this chapter, shall be filed by the parties with the appropriate state commission no later than June 30, 1997, or such earlier date as the state commission may require.
( c ) If a state commission approves a preexisting agreement, it shall be made available to other parties in accordance with section 252(i) of the Act and § 51.809 of this part. A state commission may reject a preexisting agreement on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the public interest, or for other reasons set forth in section 252(e)(2)(A) of the Act.
No. 11-5724.

#### Garcia Rico *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 2014

- NM

- 0 44

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
Introductions/Opening Remarks Eddie Terrill 

 Air Quality Director 

 Scott Thomas 

 Environmental Programs Manager

 

 Summary of Findings Sta 

 

 

 

 Next Steps Sta

Agenda

Regional Haze Planning

Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area

Oklahoma’s

 “The prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment to visibility.”

 

 August 16, 2007

 10:00 a.m.

 Conference Phone: 800-504-4496

 Pass Code: 3937085#

 707 N Robinson (PO Box 1677) Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101

 405 702 4100 FAX: 405 702 4101

The Air Quality Division of the Department of Environmental Quality

Consultation 1

Contact: Cheryl Bradley cheryl.bradley@deq.state.ok.us 405 702 4218
# Eiropas Savienības C 176A/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0952
  doi:10.3000/19770952.CA2013.176.lav |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 176A |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Informācija un paziņojumi | 56. sējums2013. gada 21. jūnijs |

ISSN 1977-0952

doi:10.3000/19770952.CA2013.176.lav

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 176A

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Informācija un paziņojumi

56. sējums2013. gada 21. jūnijs

---

| Paziņojums Nr. | Saturs | Lappuse |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Labojumi |
| 2013/C 176A/01 | Labojums paziņojumā par atklātu konkursu EPSO/AD/249/13 (OV C 75 A, 14.3.2013.) | 1 |

Paziņojums Nr.

Saturs

Lappuse

Labojumi

2013/C 176A/01

Labojums paziņojumā par atklātu konkursu EPSO/AD/249/13 (OV C 75 A, 14.3.2013.)

(OV C 75 A, 14.3.2013.)

1

ATSKAITE PAR OFICIĀLĀ VĒSTNEŠA C A SĒRIJU KONKURSI

Lūdzu, skatīt sarakstu ar C A sērijas izdevumiem, kas publicēti šā gada laikā.

Ja nav norādīts citādi, Oficiālo Vēstnesi izdod visās valodu versijās.

Oficiālo Vēstnesi

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 27 | (RO) |
| 29 | |
| 33 | |
| 34 | |
| 36 | (DA) |
| 41 | (BG) |
| 43 | (EN) |
| 49 | (ET) |
| 50 | (HU) |
| 51 | (SL) |
| 54 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 58 | (EN/GA) |
| 75 | |
| 81 | |
| 82 | |
| 88 | (BG) |
| 89 | (CS) |
| 94 | |
| 104 | |
| 109 | |
| 111 | |
| 112 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 117 | (ET) |
| 118 | |
| 120 | |
| 131 | |
| 143 | |
| 160 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 162 | |
| 166 | |
| 167 | |
| 168 | |
| 172 | |
| 173 | |
| 174 | |
| 176 | (BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV) |

5

27

(RO)

29

33

34

36

(DA)

41

(BG)

43

(EN)

49

(ET)

50

(HU)

51

(SL)

54

(DE/EN/FR)

58

(EN/GA)

75

81

82

88

(BG)

89

(CS)

94

104

109

111

112

(DE/EN/FR)

117

(ET)

118

120

131

143

160

(DE/EN/FR)

162

166

167

168

172

173

174

176

(BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV)

| LV | |
| --- | --- |

LV

---

Labojumi

| 21.6.2013 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | CA 176/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2013

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

CA 176/1

---

Labojums paziņojumā par atklātu konkursu EPSO/AD/249/13

(
  “Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis” C 75 A, 2013. gada 14. marts
  )

(2013/C 176 A/01)

6. lappusē VI sadaļas 2. punkta d) apakšpunktā:

tekstu:

| “d) | strukturētu interviju par kompetencēm konkrētajā jomā, balstoties uz atbildēm, kas sniegtas pieteikuma sadaļā “talanta vērtētājs”,” |
| --- | --- |

“d)

strukturētu interviju par kompetencēm konkrētajā jomā, balstoties uz atbildēm, kas sniegtas pieteikuma sadaļā “talanta vērtētājs”,”

lasīt šādi:

| “d) | strukturētu interviju par kompetencēm konkrētajā jomā un balstoties uz atbildēm, kas sniegtas pieteikuma sadaļā “talanta vērtētājs”,”. |
| --- | --- |

“d)

strukturētu interviju par kompetencēm konkrētajā jomā un balstoties uz atbildēm, kas sniegtas pieteikuma sadaļā “talanta vērtētājs”,”.

---