alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 5.51 General information on fees for all FOIA requests. ( a ) We generally assume that when you request records you are willing to pay the fees we charge for services associated with your request. You may specify a limit on the amount you are willing to spend. We will notify you if it appears that the fees will exceed $25.00 or your specified limit and ask whether you nevertheless want us to proceed with the search.
( b ) If you have failed to pay FOIA fees in the past, we will require you to pay your past due bill and we may also require you to pay the anticipated fee before we begin processing your current request. If we estimate that your fees may be greater than $250.00, we also may require advance payment or a deposit before we begin processing your request. If you fail to make an advance payment within 20 working days after the date of our fee letter, we will close the request.
( c ) We may charge interest on unpaid bills beginning on the 31st calendar day following the day the FOIA fee invoice was sent. We may assess interest, administrative costs, and penalties for overdue FOIA fee costs.
( d ) If we determine that you (either acting alone or with a group of requesters) are breaking down a single request into a series of requests in order to avoid or reduce fees, we may aggregate all of these requests when calculating the fees. In aggregating requests, we may consider the subject matter of the requests and whether the requests were filed close in time to one another.
( e ) If, in the course of negotiating fees, you do not respond to the agency within 20 working days of our last communication, your request will be closed.
( f ) We may stop the processing of your request, if necessary, to clarify fee issues with you, and to confirm your willingness to pay applicable fees. Fee related issues may arise sequentially over the course of processing a request, and the FOIA allows agencies to stop the processing time as many times as necessary in order to clarify issues regarding fee assessment and willingness to pay fees.
( g ) We may charge search fees even if the records are exempt from disclosure, or if we do not find any responsive records during our search.
( h ) We do not send an invoice to requesters if assessable processing fees are less than $25.00.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 1 D0 11 9 . ROGER L. HI C KS v

. PI SSARRO W RI GHT, et a l

.
On Au g u s t 3 1 , 2 0 2 0, t h e t ri al co u rt en t ered an o rd er g ran t i n g Pl ai n t i ffs ’ m o t i o n fo r at to rn ey

fees an d ex pen s es ag ai n s t Ro g er Hi ck s . On No v em b er 1 7 , 2 0 2 0 , Hi ck s fi led an ap pl i cat io n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal s eek in g rev iew o f t he t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er. W e l ack ju ri sd ict i o n b ecau s e Hi ck s ’ s ap pl i cat i o n i s u n t i m el y

. An ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i scret i o n ary ap p eal m u st b e fi l ed wi th i n 3 0 d ay s o f en t ry

o f t he o rd er to b e ap p eal ed

. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (d ); Hi l l v. S ta te , 20 4 Ga. A p p

. 5 8 2 (4 2 0 SE2 d 3 93 ) (1 9 9 2 ). W e l ack ju ri s d i ct i on t o co n s id er an u n ti m el y ap p l i cat i o n

. See Hi l l
,
s u p ra. Here, Hi ck s fi led h i s ap p l i cat io n 7 8 d ay s a f t e r t h e t r i al co u rt ’ s o rd er was

en t ered

. Accor d i ngly
, w e l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n an d t h e ap p li cat i o n i s h ereb y D ISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. December 10, 2020

12/10/2020
§ 410.1802 Placement standards for emergency or influx facilities. ( a ) Unaccompanied children who are placed in an emergency or influx facility (EIF) must meet all of the following criteria to the extent feasible. If ORR becomes aware that a child does not meet any of the following criteria at any time after placement into an EIF, ORR shall transfer the unaccompanied child to the least restrictive setting appropriate for that child's need as expeditiously as possible. ORR shall only place a child in an EIF if the child: ( 1 ) Is expected to be released to a sponsor within 30 days;
( 2 ) Is age 13 or older;
( 3 ) Speaks English or Spanish as their preferred language;
( 4 ) Does not have a known disability or other mental health or medical issue or dental issue requiring additional evaluation, treatment, or monitoring by a healthcare provider;
( 5 ) Is not a pregnant or parenting teenager;
( 6 ) Would not have a diminution of legal services as a result of the transfer to the EIF; and
( 7 ) Is not a danger to self or others (including not having been charged with or convicted of a criminal offense).
( b ) ORR shall also consider the following factors for the placement of an unaccompanied child in an EIF: ( 1 ) The unaccompanied child should not be part of a sibling group with a sibling(s) age 12 years or younger;
( 2 ) The unaccompanied child should not be subject to a pending age determination;
( 3 ) The unaccompanied child should not be involved in an active State licensing, child protective services, or law enforcement investigation, or an investigation resulting from a sexual abuse allegation;
( 4 ) The unaccompanied child should not have a pending home study;
( 5 ) The unaccompanied child should not be turning 18 years old within 30 days of the transfer to an EIF;
( 6 ) The unaccompanied child should not be scheduled to be discharged in three days or less;
( 7 ) The unaccompanied child should not have a scheduled hearing date in immigration court or State/family court (juvenile included), and not have an attorney of record or DOJ Accredited Representative;
( 8 ) The unaccompanied child should be medically cleared and vaccinated as required by the EIF (for instance, if the EIF is on a U.S. Department of Defense site); and
( 9 ) The unaccompanied child should have no known mental health, dental, or medical issues, including contagious diseases requiring additional evaluation, treatment, or monitoring by a healthcare provider.
§ 2525.410 Under what circumstances may an Eligible Individual transfer an education award? An Eligible Individual may transfer an education award if— ( a ) The Eligible Individual was 55 or older on the day they began the term of service in an approved national service position;
( b ) The Eligible Individual successfully completed a term of service in an approved national service position;
( c ) The education award the Eligible Individual is requesting to transfer has not expired, consistent with the period of availability set forth in § 2525.40(a);
( d ) The individual designated to receive the transferred education award (the Designated Recipient) is: ( 1 ) The Eligible Individual's child, grandchild, stepchild, step-grandchild, or foster child; and
( 2 ) A citizen, national, or lawful permanent resident of the United States.
( e ) The Designated Recipient is not entitled to the education award until their citizenship status has been verified. Once citizenship is confirmed, the Designated Recipient has all the benefits of an Eligible Individual.
#### § 800.110 Service area.

An MSP issuer must offer an MSP option within one or more service areas in a State defined by each Exchange pursuant to 45 CFR 155.1055. If an Exchange permits issuers to define their service areas, an MSP issuer must obtain OPM's approval for its proposed service areas. Pursuant to § 800.104 of this part, OPM may enter into a contract with an MSP issuer even if the MSP issuer's MSP options for a State cover fewer than all the service areas specified for that State. MSP options will follow the same standards for service areas for QHPs pursuant to 45 CFR 155.1055.
Registrant and PWG - EPA Pyrethroid Ecological Risk Assessment meetings : March 2015 - September 2015

MGK and EPA met on February 11 , 2015 to discuss the registration review ecological risk assessment for the pyrethroids. A letter was sent to registrants on January 29, 2015 describing the streamlined ecological risk assessment strategy, which is also available in the special pyrethroid docket EPA - HQ - OPP 2008 - 0331 .  Non - EPA Participants: Jan Sharp, MGK  EPA: Carissa Cyran, Margaret Hathaway, Avivah Jakob, Marianne Mannix, Tracy Perry, Steven Snyderman, Miguel Zavala, Neil Anderson , Garland Waleko The Pyrethroid Working Group ( PWG ) and EP A met on March 17 th , 2015 to discuss the registration review ecological risk assessment for the pyrethroids. A letter was sent to registrants on January 29, 2015 describing the streamlined ecological risk assessment strategy, which is also available in the special pyrethroid docket EPA - HQ - OPP - 2008 - 0331 .  Meeting sign - in sheet attached April 9, 2015 PWG - EPA update call with follow up questions from the March 2015 meeting, including information needed for the down the drain part of the assessment.
 PWG Part icipants: Jan Sharp, MGK; Ann Orth, FMC  EPA: Cathryn Britton, Kevin Costello, Garland Waleko May 11, 2015 PWG - EPA update call to discuss progress of the ecological risk assessment.
 PWG Participants: Jan Sharp, MGK; Ann Orth, FMC  EPA: Cathryn Britton, Ke vin Costello, Garland Waleko June 16, 2015 PWG - EPA update call to discuss progress of the ecological risk assessment.
 PWG Participants: Jan Sharp, MGK; Ann Orth, FMC  EPA: Cathryn Britton, Kevin Costello, Garland Waleko July 14, 2015 PWG - EPA update meet ing to discuss progress of the ecological risk assessment.
 PWG Participants: Jan Sharp, MGK; Ann Orth, FMC  EPA: Cathryn Britton, Kevin Costello, Garland Waleko August 13, 2015 PWG - EPA Technical Meeting on pyrethroid bioavailability in aquatic systems .  Meeting sign - in sheet attached September 15, 2015 PWG - EPA update meeting to discuss progress of the ecological risk assessment.
 PWG Participants: Ann Orth, FMC ; Richard Allen, Valent  EPA: Cathryn Britton, Kevin Costello, Garland Waleko
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1817 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 8, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 116 North West Street in Somerville, Tennessee, as the ‘‘John S. Wilder Post Office Building’’. 

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


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

HR 1817 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. JOHN S. WILDER POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

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

3 Postal Service located at 116 North West Street in Somer4 ville, Tennessee, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘John S. Wilder Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘John S. Wilder Post 

10 Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 4, 2009. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0014 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JACK WARREN MAXVILL, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT** Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until August 2 , 2021, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court July 1 2021

07/01/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0014
#### Clark v. Hampton.

*Guaranty against statute of limitations—when invalid—Evidence.*

Defendant guarantied a note which was apparently outlawed as follows: “ I hereby guaranty that the above note is not outlawed according to the laws of our State.” The holder of the note brought action thereupon against the maker who set up the statute of limitations, which defense was sustained. At the trial of this action upon the guaranty defendant offered to show that the maker of the note was irresponsible. *Eeld,*(1) that no consideration being expressed the guaranty was invalid; and (2) that defendant was entitled to show that the maker of the note was irresponsible and a judgment against him could not be collected.

Appeal from a judgment of the county court of Livingston reversing a judgment recovered by the plaintiff in the court of a justice of the peace. The action was brought by Henry M. Clark against Isaac Hampton, upon a guaranty of a note, of which the following is a copy, -with the guaranty:

“For value received, I promise to pay Isaac Hampton, or bearer, twenty-five dollars one year from date, with interest.

*December*17,1862. “ John Seager.”

*76“ I hereby guaranty that the above note is not outlawed according to the laws of our State.

“Isaac Hampton.”

The note was given, as was claimed by the plaintiff, in part payment of an organ purchased by the defendant from plaintiff. Defendant testified that he gave plaintiff $200 for the organ and gave him certain notes among which was the one in question im order to make it appear that plaintiff did not sell the organ under the price of $280.

The plaintiff sued the maker of the note who defended and pleaded the statute of limitations, and this defense was sustained and judgment given for the defendant in that suit (the maker of the note), the defendant in this action, Hampton, having no notice of the commencement or pendency of said suit.

At the trial before the justice of the peace, defendant offered to show that the maker of the note was an irresponsible person at the time the guaranty was given, but upon the objection of the plaintiff was not allowed to do so.

Judgment was given by the justice of the peace for the plaintiff for $40 damages and $5.90 costs, which was reversed on appeal by the county court, and the plaintiff appeals to this court.

*L. B. Proctor,*for appellant.

*Charles J. Bissell,*for respondent.

E. Darwin Smith, J.

The judgment of reversal by the county court, I think, was entirely correct on several grounds. The. guaranty was invalid for want of any consideration expressed in it, but the defendant was clearly entitled to show that the maker of said note was entirely worthless and that a judgment against him could not be collected within the cases of *Bridge*v. *Mason,*45 Barb. 38, and *Jansen*v. *Ball,*6 Cow. 628, as held by the county judge.

The judgment of the county court should be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
§ 73.735-1304 Referral of matters arising under the standards of this part. ( a ) The Department Ethics Counselor may refer to the Inspector General for investigation and/or further action any matter arising under the standards of this part.
( b ) The Department Ethics Counselor may refer to the Office of Government Ethics, or the Inspector General may refer to the Department of Justice, suspected violations of the criminal laws regarding employee standards of conduct and conflicts of interest.
SERVED: JULY 17,2015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF BEACH AVIATION, LLC DOCKET NO. FAA-2015-1325 (Civil Penalty Action)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2013S0950071) has been assigned to Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other persons onthe attached Service List.

Ronnie 

### A. Yoder ChiefAdministrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001

Charles Brady BeachAviation, LLC, Respondent 3700 Airport Road, Suite 405 BocaRaton, FL 33431 TEL: 954-600-0260 ONE COPY

Brandon C. Goldberg, Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, ASO-7 Federal Aviation Administration, Southern Region 1701 ColumbiaAvenue College Park, GA 30337 TEL: 404-305-5200 FPC{: 404-305-5223 Hon. J.E. Sullivan,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FPC{: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2015-1325 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION { CONVENEDJANUARY6,1999 

SECOND SESSION { 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Thursday, March 11, 1999 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF GARY SISCO, 

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

By Michelle Haynes, Executive Clerk 
1 

RESOLUTIONS 

CALENDAR Ex. REs REPORTED 

No. No SUBJECT BY 
2 

TREATIES 

CALENDAR TREATY REPORTED 

No. Doc. No. SUBJECT BY 
3 

NOMINATIONS 

CALENDAR MESSAGE REPORTED 

No. No. NOMINEE, OFFICE, AND PREDECESSOR BY 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

* 1 1-15 Susan G. Esserman, ofMaryland, to be Deputy Jan 22, 99 Reported by Mr. Roth, 

United States Trade Representative, with the Committee on Finance, without 

rank of Ambassador, vice Jeffrey M. Lang, printed report. 

resigned. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

* 2 1-18 Timothy F. Geithner, of New York, to be an Jan 22, 99 Reported by Mr. Roth, 

Under Secretary of the Treasury, vice David A. Committee on Finance, without 

Lipton. printed report. 

* 3 1-19 Gary Gensler, of Maryland, to be an Under Jan 22, 99 Reported by Mr. Roth, 

Secretary of the Treasury, vice John D. Committee on Finance, without 

Hawke, Jr. printed report. 

* 4 3-5 Edwin M. Truman, of Maryland, to be a Deputy Jan 22, 99 Reported by Mr. Roth, 

Under Secretary of the Treasury, vice Timothy Committee on Finance, without 

F. Geithner. printed report. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

* 8 1-20 T. J. Glauthier, of California, to be Deputy Feb 25, 99 Reported by Mr. 

Secretary of Energy, vice Elizabeth Anne Murkowski, Committee on 

Moler. Energy and Natural Resources, 

without printed report. 

*Signifies nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate 
4 

NOMINATIONS PLACED ON THE SECRETARY'S DESK
Case 1:11-cv-00562 Document 64 Filed 04/10/14 Page 1 of 1
§ 660.10 How does the Director make efforts to accommodate intergovernmental concerns? ( a ) If a state process provides a state process recommendation to the Foundation through its single point of contact, the Director either: ( 1 ) Accepts the recommendation;
( 2 ) Reaches a mutually agreeable solution with the state process; or
( 3 ) Provides the single point of contact with a written explanation of the decision in such form as the Director in his or her discretion deems appropriate. The Director may also supplement the written explanation by providing the explanation to the single point of contact by telephone, other telecommunication, or other means.
( b ) In any explanation under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the Director informs the single point of contact that: ( 1 ) The Foundation will not implement its decision for at least ten days after the single point of contact receives the explanation; or
( 2 ) The Director has reviewed the decision and determined that, because of unusual circumstances, the waiting period of at least ten days is not feasible.
( c ) For purposes of computing the waiting period under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a single point of contact is presumed to have received written notification 5 days after the date of mailing of such notification.
TS – 10KK7G, Physical and Chemical Properties Worksheet, FTIR Trace 

Redacted
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10-cv-1155-J-37JRK

SAM KAZRAN,

Defendant.

 

ORDER

This cause is before the Court sua sponte. The parties have submitted a document

entitled, "Stipulated Order And Consent Judgment" (Doc. No. 62), indicating the parties

have reached an amicable settlement. The Court declines the invitation to enter the

proposed order, which was submitted without a proper motion in violation of Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 7(b)(1) and Local Rule 3.01(a). The Court likewise declines to enter an

order retaining jurisdiction over this case. 

However, in view of the resolution of the parties' dispute, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. The parties shall have until March 30, 2012 to file a joint motion or other

appropriate application or notice (the "settlement documents") to close out this file. 

2. If the parties have not filed settlement documents or a request for extension

of time by the March 30, 2012 deadline, this case will automatically be deemed to be

dismissed without prejudice. The parties are cautioned that in some cases, the Court

may not have jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements once the case has been

dismissed without prejudice; thus, if the parties have not finalized their settlement

by the deadline, they are encouraged to move for an extension of that deadline. The

Case 3:10-cv-01155-RBD-JRK Document 63 Filed 02/23/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID 687
Clerk should close the file now, subject to reopening if the parties file papers by the

deadline. 

3. All pending motions and deadlines are terminated, and the July 7, 2012 final

pretrial conference and August 2012 trial calendar settings are vacated.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Jacksonville, Florida, on February 22, 2012.

Copies: 

counsel of record

2

Case 3:10-cv-01155-RBD-JRK Document 63 Filed 02/23/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID 688
###### Editorial Note on Part 85

#### Editorial Note:

At the request of the Department of Health and Human Services, the “Section-by-Section Analysis” portion of the preamble of the document published at 53 FR 25595, July 8, 1988, as corrected at 53 FR 26559, July 13, 1988, appears at the end of part 85.

#### §§ 85.13-85.20 [Reserved]
§ 63.2 Eligibility for award. ( a ) *Groups and organizations eligible.* Except where otherwise prohibited by law, any public or nonprofit private agency, institution, or organization which is found by the Assistant Secretary to be authorized and qualified by educational, scientific, or other relevant competence to carry out a proposed project in accordance with the regulations of this subchapter shall be eligible to receive a grant under this part.
( b ) *Project eligible* — ( 1 ) *Policy research.* Any project found by the Assistant Secretary to be a research, pilot, evaluation, or demonstration project within the meaning of this section and § 63.1 shall be eligible for an award. Eligible projects may include planning, policy modeling or research utilization studies; experiments; demonstrations; field investigations; statistical data collections or analyses; or other types of investigation or studies, or combinations thereof, and may either be limited to one aspect of a problem or subject, or may consist of two or more related problems or subjects for concurrent or consecutive investigation and may involve multiple disciplines, facilities, and resources.
( 2 ) *Telecommunications demonstrations.* Any projects which meet the special criteria in § 63.6(c) shall be eligible for a telecommunications demonstration grant.
[40 FR 23295, May 29, 1975, as amended at 42 FR 36149, July 13, 1977]