alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
"Gordon, Rebecca (Perkins To "mkuest@fec.gov" <mkuest@fec.gov> 

C^ie)" 

<RGorton@perklnscole.com> ^ "ab0nlewlc2@fec.gov" <ab0nlewlc2@fec.gov>. 

"thintermister@fec.gov" <thintermlster@fec.gov> 

08/15/2011 02:31 PM bcc 

Subject RE: Response from Cmte 

i\/larty: 

Thank you for checking in. The Committee has no further information it wishes to add at this time. 

Best. 

Rebecca 

Rebecca Gordon | Perkins Coie LLP 

700 13th St.^NW. Suite 600 

Washington, DC 20005-3960 

ph. 202.434.1676 

f. 202.654.9666 

rgordon@perkinscoie .com 

IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION: This communication is not Intended or written by Peridns Coie LLP to be used, and cannot be 

used by the taxpayer. for4he purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Intemal Revenue Code 

of 1966, as amended. 

PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW ADDRESS
#### § 8.8 Filing of labor agreements.

Within 60 days after the effective date of the regulations in this part (January 1, 1949), concessioners shall file with the Director of the National Park Service a copy of each labor agreement in effect on the effective date of the regulations in this part, covering rates of pay, hours of work, and conditions of employment duly negotiated with their employees as a whole or by class, craft, or other appropriate unit. Thereafter, on July 1 of each year concessioners shall file copies of all such agreements then in effect with the Director of the National Park Service.

[24 FR 11053, Dec. 30, 1959. Redesignated at 51 FR 24656, July 8, 1986]
#### § 1801.15 Submission of application to the Foundation.

To nominate a student for the competition, the Faculty Representative must submit the completed nomination packet to the Foundation as provided in § 1801.16. The Foundation does not accept nominations packets directly from students.
§ 410.2001 UC Office of the Ombuds policies and procedures; contact information. ( a ) The UC Office of the Ombuds shall develop appropriate standards, practices, and policies and procedures, giving consideration to the recommendations by nationally recognized Ombudsperson organizations.
( b ) The UC Office of the Ombuds shall make its standards, practices, reports and findings, and policies and procedures publicly available.
( c ) The UC Office of the Ombuds shall make information about the office and how to contact it publicly available, in both English and other languages spoken and understood by unaccompanied children in ORR care. The Ombuds may identify preferred methods for raising awareness of the office and its activities, which may include, but not be limited to, visiting ORR facilities, or publishing aggregated information about the type and number of concerns the office receives, as well as giving recommendations.
Editorial Note on Part 302
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 64 FR 6247, Feb. 9, 1999.

§ 302.31 Establishing paternity and securing support. The State plan shall provide that: ( a ) The IV-D agency will undertake: ( 1 ) In the case of a child born out of wedlock with respect to whom an assignment as defined in § 301.1 of this chapter is effective, to establish the paternity of such child; and
( 2 ) In the case of any individual with respect to whom an assignment as defined in § 301.1 of this chapter is effective, to secure support for a child or children from any person who is legally liable for such support, using State laws regarding intrastate and interstate establishment and enforcement of support obligations. Effective October 1, 1985, this includes securing support for a spouse or former spouse who is living with the child or children, but only if a support obligation has been established for that spouse and the child support obligation is being enforced under the title IV-D State plan.
( 3 ) When assigned medical support payments are received and retained by a non-IV-A Medicaid recipient, the IV-D agency shall notify the Medicaid agency whenever it discovers that directly received medical support payments are being, or have been, retained.
( b ) Upon receiving notice of a claim of good cause for failure to cooperate, the IV-D agency will suspend all activities to establish paternity or secure support until notified of a final determination by the appropriate agency.
( c ) The IV-D agency will not undertake to establish paternity or secure support in any case for which it has received notice that there has been a finding of good cause unless there has been a determination that support enforcement may proceed without the participation of the caretaker or other relative. If there has been such a determination, the IV-D agency will undertake to establish paternity or secure support but may not involve the caretaker or other relative in such undertaking.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 0960-0385 and 0970-0107) [50 FR 19647, May 9, 1985, as amended at 51 FR 25526, July 15, 1986; 51 FR 37731, Oct. 24, 1986; 56 FR 8003, Feb. 26, 1991; 64 FR 6247, Feb. 9, 1999; 68 FR 25303, May 12, 2003]
#### The County of Erie, Appellant and Respondent, v. Jacob W. Diehl et al., Respondents and Appellants.

*County of Erie*y. *Diehl,*129 App. Div. 735, affirmed.

(Argued June 8, 1909;

decided October 5, 1909.)

Cross-appeals from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered February 25, 1909, modifying and affirming as rnodified a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at an Equity Term in an action to recover upon a county treasurer’s bond.

*Philip A. Laing*and *Thomas A. Sullivan*for plaintiff, appellant and respondent.

*W. C. Carroll*for defendants, respondents and appellants.

Judgment affirmed, without costs, on opinion of Spring, J., below.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ. Dissenting: Gray, Haight and Vann, JJ.
§ 2551.62 What are the responsibilities of a volunteer station? Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70542 , Aug. 30, 2024.
A volunteer station shall undertake the following responsibilities in support of Senior Companion volunteers: ( a ) Develop volunteer assignments that meet the requirements specified in §§ 2551.71 through 2551.72, and regularly assess those assignments for continued appropriateness.
( b ) Select eligible clients for assigned volunteers.
( c ) Develop a written volunteer assignment plan for each Senior Companion that identifies their roles and activities, each client served, and expected outcomes.
( d ) Keep a Letter of Agreement for each client who receives in-home service.
( e ) Provide Senior Companions serving the station with: ( 1 ) Orientation to the station and any in-service training necessary to enhance performance of assignments; and
( 2 ) Resources required for performance of assignments, including reasonable accommodation, as needed, to enable Senior Companions with disabilities to perform the essential functions of their service.
( f ) Designate a staff member to oversee fulfillment of station responsibilities and supervision of Senior Companions while on assignment.
( g ) Keep records and prepare reports required by the sponsor.
( h ) Provide for the safety of Senior Companions assigned to it.
( i ) Comply with all applicable civil rights laws and regulations, including providing Senior Companions with disabilities reasonable accommodation, to perform the essential functions of their service.
( j ) Undertake such other responsibilities as may be necessary for the successful performance of Senior Companions in their assignments or as agreed to in the Memorandum of Understanding.
[64 FR 14115, Mar. 24, 1999, as amended at 83 FR 64647, Dec. 17, 2018]
#### Jay v. De Groot.

*Practice—one not a pa/rty appealing bound by result of proceeding.*

Where one not a party in an action appears and is allowed to he heard in a motion therein, it renders such one an actual party to the motion, and bound by the result thereof.

Appeal by the Equitable Eire Insurance Company of London from an order, at special term, refusing leave to enter judgment for a deficiency in an action brought by John Jay, Beceiver of the Mechanics’ Eire Insurance Company, against William H. De Groot and others, to foreclose a mortgage. ■ The appellant was not a party to the action, but claimed an interest in the mortgage in question.

*Charles E. Whitehead,*for appellant.'

*Levi 8. ChuffiM*for respondent.

Daniels, J.

The court held that as the question had been decided at a hearing where the appellant appeared and was heard, they would not interfere with the decision then made. The opinion states :

> *“*On that hearing all the facts could have been shown for any thing now appearing to the contrary, just as well as the single affidavit made by Mr. Holbrook. There must have. been an opportunity for a full and complete hearing as long as the insurance company was allowed to be heard at all. And it was its own fault if it neglected to show any thing then existing which would *671have constituted either a legal or equitable answer to the motion. This hearing was as effectual as though the company had received notice of the motion, and had been named as a formal party to it.. For the only, object of those forms is to secure to the party an opportunity to be heard in a proceeding taken to affect his rights. And that was fully secured by the opportunity which was given to the company, and made use of by it, not only to produce affidavits and be heard on the motion itself, but afterward also on the argument of the appeal taken from the order made when the motion was decided. This made the company an actual party to the motion, with all the advantages as well as the disabilities resulting from that relation to it. Among the latter is the circumstance, that a motion once decided is ordinarily final on the matters involved in it, unless leave be given or obtained to present the same matter afterward for' consideration and decision. This was held to be the effect of such a proceeding in *Dwight*v. *St. John,*25 N. Y. 203. And the company having, and also availing itself of the opportunity to be heard as a party to it, is fully concluded by the disposition which was then made of the judgment now desired to be entered again. *Castle*v. *Noyes,*14 N. Y. 329.”

*Order affirmed.*
[No. 1847.]

#### Breeze v. Haley et al.

Opinion Followed.

This case is reversed upon the opinion in the case of *Breeze v. Haley et al., ante,*p. 438.

*Appeal from the District Court of Arapahoe County.*

Mr. W. B. McClelland and Mr. Henby T. Sale, for appellant.

*444Mr. W. T. Hughes, for appellees.

Thomson, J.

This is a suit on an undertaking for an injunction. In form it is identical with that in *Breeze v. Haley et al,*ante, p. 438. This differs from that only in its date, and the names of the persons executing it; and it was given in another suit brought by Ora Haley to restrain the collection of the same tax. As in the other case, an injunction was allowed by the district court; and as in the other, the judgment was reversed, and the injunction dissolved by the supreme court.

This action was dismissed by the court below, because it appeared that the plaintiff, Lewis H. Breeze, had ceased to be the treasurer of Routt county before the suit was brought. The several steps taken in the case, and the rulings and final judgment, were substantially the same with those in the suit upon the other undertaking, so that a separate opinion is unnecessary.

The judgment will be reversed and remanded, with instructions to the district court to permit the withdrawal of the amended, and the reinstatement of the original, complaint; to give the defendants leave to answer; and to proceed to a trial of the case upon its facts.

Reversed.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

September 17, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-20-00624-CR

NO. 14-20-00625-CR

IN RE TERRENCE JOHNSON, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

338th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1657698 & 1650245

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 11, 2020, relator Terrence Johnson filed a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. 

App. P. 52. Relator claims that his bail is excessive and asks this court to reduce his 

bail. 

The courts of appeal have no original habeas-corpus jurisdiction in criminal 

matters. In re Ayers, 515 S.W.3d 956, 956 (Tex. App.―Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, 
2

orig. proceeding) (citing Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(d)). Original jurisdiction 

to grant a writ of habeas corpus in a criminal case is vested in the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals, the district courts, the county courts, or a judge in those courts. 

Id. (citing Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art 11.05). Therefore, this court does not 

have original habeas corpus jurisdiction over a request to reduce bail in a criminal 

case. See Ortiz v. State, 299 S.W.3d 930, 932 (Tex. App.―Amarillo 2009, orig. 

proceeding) (holding court of appeals did not have jurisdiction in original 

proceeding to consider challenge to denial of bail and dismissing petition for writ of 

habeas corpus). 

Accordingly, relator’s petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jewell, and Zimmerer.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERALOF TEXAS**  AUSTIN

"The powor@ whloh the Comisrionen' 'Courtmay bo aospsllod to oxeroirs are cl@- **rima** hi th6 **c0nstitution** io the bilowtag languagoi**po8. ,a.**  **aalnty Comm.l88iomsm** **’ Cleurt,**  -oh 8ball l xorol80 moh perrs and Juri8distioncm- all otmnty byslm88 a8 i8 oonfurod **by** this ~Goastltution and 

### thrlawa **or** the State or a8 may be barafter pm8oribod.' Article 5,tko. 18. Vhe power8 Ihloh the Lq$l8latun may requimstha to exerqlse qe oonrinedbr thlg a@at$olv;to:

:oo9nff~~~~ss;':an~:;*r:~:thi@k t&t aliar '.&atthk',

idiln5.8

ttit$ph O$~.

t&al &fact8 of a dl88olred oorporatlon and.the peymnt of Ita debt8 are not uuohbu8lno8s." In Rdlmrd8 couqty v. Jennlxl&8, 83 6. ,?.385, the ecurt said:

In rSew 6f tbb8+ holdirrgs of our 

### ocurt.8;we answer both of th8 above 

### queirtion8in the nwative.

Your8 very truly **ATTORNEY** OEWlCRAL

O? TEXAS
ASR-W APPROVED JUL 5, 1939

W. **F.** UOORB FIRST AssfsTAm **ATTORWEY** OA. S. Rolllnr Amistant
Greater than 99% of Total CO2 Emissions from Coal Combustion Obtained Through Reporting of 

Downstream Sources for the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule

TgCO2e Notes Source

Total CO2 emissions from coal combustion 2086.5

Domestic production + 

imports U.S. GHG Inventory 1990-2007 (Figure 3-5)

Emissions from coal consumed for non-energy 

purposes 3.8

Industrial Coking Coal + 

Industrial Other Coal U.S. GHG Inventory 1990-2007 (Figure 3-22)

Emissions from coal consumed in electricity 

generation 1967.6

Assumes all power plants 

that consume any coal would 

be subject to either subpart C 

or D. U.S. GHG Inventory 1990-2007 (Figure 3-5)

Emissions from coal consumed in industrial 

sector 107.4

Assumes that any industrial 

facilty that consumes coal is 

large (e.g., cement) and is 

covered by the rule. U.S. GHG Inventory 1990-2007 (Figure 3-5)

Emissions from coal consumed in territories 4.1

Assumes that any industrial 

facilty in territories that 

consumes coal is large (e.g., 

cement) and is covered by 

the rule. U.S. GHG Inventory 1990-2007 (Figure 3-5)

% of total emissions 99.83%

Source: U.S. EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007 

(April 2009)
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting of the National Science Board Commission on 21st Century Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics:

*Date and Time:*                     The meeting will take place at 8 a.m. on January 18, 2007. Please see                     *http://www.nsf.gov/​nsb/​edu_​com/​*                     for schedule updates.                

*Place:*                     The meeting will be held in at the Arizona State Capitol, 1700 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007. Check with the information desk in the lobby of the Capitol for the meeting room.                

*Type of Meeting:*                     Open.                

*Contact Person:*                     Dr. Elizabeth Strickland, Commission Executive Secretary, National Science Board Office, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230; Phone: 703-292-4527, E-mail                     *estrickl@nsf.gov*

*Purpose of Meeting:*                     The purpose of this meeting is for the Commission to discuss its draft recommendations relating to K-12 STEM education. A provisional agena for the meeting will be available at                     *http://www.nsf.gov/​nsb/​edu_​com/​ on January 4, 2007.*

*Topics to be Discussed:*                     K-Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education; recommendations of the Commission.                

*Public Comment:*                     Written comments to the Commission may be submitted by e-mail to                     *NSBEdCom@nsf.gov.*                     Those wishing to make brief public comments during the meeting may register to do so either by signing up at the information table on the day of the meeting or in advance by sending an e-mail to                     *NSBEdCom@nsf.gov.*

Dated: December 21, 2006.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 06-9900 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### Sears *et al.*v. Corbin *et al.*

*Promissory*note— delivery— *Question of fact for jury.*

In an action upon a promissory note, the plaintiff’s attorney testified that the note was turned over by him to the plaintiffs upon a claim the latter had against the defendants. This was the only evidence to prove a delivery, and *767was contradicted by proof of the witness’s declarations that he could recover upon the note for the reason that he had advanced money upon it: *Held,*that this left it for the jury to say how the fact was; and that the court erred in refusing to submit to the jury the question of delivery, and in directing a verdict for the plaintiffs.

Exceptions ordered to be heard in the first instance at the general term.

The action was brought by Julia A. Sears and others against John M. Corbin and William Hewitt upon a promissory note made by the defendants, Corbin and Hewitt, and indorsed by the defendant Hewitt, dated May 2,1871.

On the trial the plaintiff’s attorney (Mr. Bell) testified that in the winter or spring of 1871 he received from the plaintiffs an account in their favor against the defendant Corbin for collection. That Corbin and Hewitt came to his office and gave him their note for $500, payable in 6U days. The attorney also testified that he turned the note over to the plaintiffs, on their claim; and that being afterward returned to Hewitt for indorsement by another person, it was destroyed by Hewitt. Bell, being recalled by the defendants, denied having said to various persons that he (Bell) could recover on the note for the reason that he had advanced the money on it. The defendants then called four witnesses, who testified, in substance, that Bell did say, in September, 1871, that he could recover on the note for the reason that he had advanced money on it.

At the close of the testimony the defendants’ counsel requested the court to submit to the jury the question of fact as to whether the note in suit was actually delivered by Mr. Bell to the plaintiffs. The court refused to do so, and directed the jury to render a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for the amount; which they did accordingly.

C. *H. Bell,*for plaintiffs.

*W. H. Johnson,*for defendant Hewitt.

Per Curiam.

A new trial was granted for the reasons stated in the head note, and the publication of the opinion in full does not seem necessary.

*New trial granted.*
Exhibit 13.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Vedanta Limited (the
Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

|(i) | the accompanying annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2017 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 15, 2017

|    |  |                  
|--- |  | -----------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ GR Arun Kumar

Name: GR Arun Kumar

Title: Chief
Financial Officer
| 1.     | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                     |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                |
| 2.     | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |

| Dated:      November 12, 2008 | /s/      Cady L. Johnson                |
|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                          | Cady      L. Johnson                    |
|                          | President,      Chief Executive Officer |