alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1622.6 Procedures for closing discussion or withholding information. ( a ) No meeting or portion of a meeting shall be closed to public observation, and no information about a meeting shall be withheld from the public, except by a recorded vote of a majority of the Directors with respect to each meeting or portion thereof proposed to be closed to the public, or with respect to any information that is proposed to be withheld.
( b ) A separate vote of the Directors shall be taken with respect to each meeting or portion thereof proposed to be closed to the public, or with respect to any information which is proposed to be withheld; except, a single vote may be taken with respect to a series of meetings or portions thereof which are proposed to be closed to the public, or with respect to any information concerning such series of meetings, so long as each meeting in such series involves the same particular matters and is scheduled to be held no more than thirty days after the initial meeting in such series.
( c ) Whenever any person's interest may be directly affected by a matter to be discussed at a meeting, the person may request that a portion of the meeting be closed to public observation by filing a written statement with the Secretary. The statement shall set forth the person's interest, the manner in which that interest will be affected at the meeting, and the grounds upon which closure is claimed to be proper under § 1622.5. The Secretary shall promptly communicate the request to the Directors, and a recorded vote as required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be taken if any Director so requests.
( d ) With respect to each vote taken pursuant to paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, the vote of each Director participating in the vote shall be recorded and no proxies shall be allowed.
( e ) With respect to each vote taken pursuant to paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, the Corporation shall, within one business day, make publicly available: ( 1 ) A written record of the vote of each Director on the question;
( 2 ) A full written explanation of the action closing the meeting, portion(s) thereof, or series of meetings, with reference to the specific exemptions listed in § 1622.5, including a statement of reasons as to why the specific discussion comes within the cited exemption and a list of all persons expected to attend the meeting(s) or portion(s) thereof and their affiliation.
[49 FR 30940, Aug. 2, 1984, as amended at 50 FR 30714, July 29, 1985]
Exhibit (10)(a)

  

  

  

  

  

  

  Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

  

  

  

  

  We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
    Post-Effective Amendment No. 56 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-138190) and Amendment No. 772 to the 1940 Act Registration
    Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 13, 2020, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 15, 2020, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity
    Account N for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

  June 5, 2020
MOmCmMKMifOKmRD 

OAKLAND COUNTY 

P 

OAKLAND COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY 

24445 Northwestern Hwy, suite 110 

Southfield. Ml 48075 

iEMOCRATIC PARTY 

www.ocdp.org 

Phone: (248) 584-0510 

Email: lnfo@ocdD.ora 

Fox: (248) 584-1020 

Web: www.ocdD.ora 

CHAIRMAN 

Frank Houston 

VICE-CHAIRS 

Melissa Bernard! 

Kelly Garrett 

Gregory Miles 

Tony Grillo 

RECORDING SECRETARY 

Kathy Martin 

CORRESPONDING SECRETARY 

Wanda Anderson 

TREASURER 

Phil Reld 

8TH DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE 

Sandy RItter 

9TH DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE 

leremy Mahrle 

llTH DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE 

Jiin Plerson 

14TH DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE 

Vacant 

OFFICERS AT LARGE 

Sarah Allsbrooks 

Tiffany Bush 

Chuck Collins 

Don Defoe 

Jaron GarEa 

Dr. Anil Kumar 

Elisa Malile 

John Ranchman 

Hy Safran 

Ben.Vinehurg 

Maria Willett 

Parliamentarian 

Murray Gorchow 

Directnr of Operations 

Amanda Klein -

. 'I leave as I arrived, 

understanding the compiextty 

' of the world into which we 

were born and optimistic that if 

we give it our bestshot,-we will 

' come dose to achleifing the 

goaisetfbr us 200years ago." 

—the late U.S. Senator 

Philip A. Hart 

Thomas Hintermister 

Assistant Staff Director 

Audit Division 

Federal Election Commission 

999 E Street NW 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

Dear Mr. Hintermister: 

April 9,2015 

On behalf of the Oakland County Democratic Party and its treasurer 

(collectively "OCDP"), 1 write to respond to the Draft Audit Report (DAR). 

The OCDP has cooperated fully with the Audit Division since the EEC voted 

to audit the OCDP on November 30,2012. We appreciate the cooperation provided 

by the Audit Division's staff. 

The OCDP has worked in good faith to comply with both state law goveming 

its gaming activities and the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Although the 

OCDP respectfully disagrees with some aspects of the DAR regarding its gaming 

activities, the OCDP will fully comply with all the DAR's recommendations without 

admitting to any violations of the FECA. 

The OCDP has already begun the process of complying with all of the DAR's 

recommendations. 

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Very truly yours. 

Frank Houston, Chair 

Oakland County Democratic Party 

Paid for by the OaMand Couniy Democratic Party and not authorized by any candidate or candidaic'i committee. 

Contributions are not tax deductible on your foderal income tax. Printed in house with donated labor
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 7 -00608 -CR

Br ando n Ra y Tr e vin o , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY , 51ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. A-06 -04 11- S , HO NORAB LE B EN WO ODW ARD , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Ap pe lla nt’ s c ourt -a

pp ointe d att or

ne y fi le d a br ie f c on c lud ingthat th e a pp e a l is frivolous and without merit. The brief mee ts the require ments of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1 9 6 7 ) , b y p r e s e n ti n g a p r o f e s s io n a l e v a lu a ti o n o f th e r e c o r d d e mo n s tr a ti n g w h y th ere are no
ar guable g rounds to be adva nced. Se e als o Pe ns on v . O hio , 4 88 U. S. 7 5 ( 19 88 ); H i g h v . Stat e , 57 3 S. W.2 d 8 07 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tate , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); J ac k so n v . S tate , 48 5 S.W. 2d 55 3 (T e x. Cr im. App . 1 97 2) ; Ga ino us v . S tate , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969)
. Appellant rec eived a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate r ecor d and to file a pro se br ief. No pr o se brief has bee n filed. We have r eviewe d the re cord a nd counsel’s br ief a

nd ag ree that the a

p p e a l is frivolous
and wi tho ut m e ri t. We fi nd no thi ngin t

he re c or d th a t mi g ht a

rgua bly su pp or t th e a pp e a l.2

Se e Bl e ds oev . S

tate , 17 8 S .W .3 d 8 24 , 8 26 -2 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ). Couns e l’ s mo tio n to withdraw is g rante d.

The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Waldrop and H enson Affir med Filed: Nove mber 14, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
#### § 630.105 Does this part apply to me?

(a) Portions of this part apply to you if you are either—

(1) A recipient of an assistance award from the National Science Foundation; or

(2) A(n) National Science Foundation awarding official. (See definitions of award and recipient in §§ 630.605 and 630.660, respectively.)

(b) The following table shows the subparts that apply to you:

| If you are . . . | see subparts . . . |
| --- | --- |
| (1) A recipient who is not an individual | A, B and E. |
| (2) A recipient who is an individual | A, C and E. |
| (3) A(n) National Science Foundation awarding official | A, D and E. |
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 61 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 61

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
   United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Highway 
Administration relating to ``National Performance Management Measures; 
 Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Greenhouse Gas 
                          Emissions Measure''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Federal Highway Administration relating to 
``National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance of 
the National Highway System, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measure'' (88 
Fed. Reg. 85364 (December 7, 2023)), and such rule shall have no force 
or effect.

            Passed the Senate April 10, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                             S. J. RES. 61

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
   United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Highway 
Administration relating to ``National Performance Management Measures; 
 Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Greenhouse Gas 
                          Emissions Measure''.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________

)

DAVID E. OLSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 07-1584 (PLF)

)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, )

)

Defendant. )

__________________________________________)

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion issued this same day, it is

hereby

ORDERED that Defendant Federal Election Commission’s Motion to Dismiss the

Complaint [8] is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint for

insufficiency of service of process under Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without

prejudice. 

The Clerk of this Court shall remove this case from the docket of this Court. This

is a final appealable Order. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a).

SO ORDERED.

 /s/___________________________

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

United States District Judge

DATE: March 11, 2009

Case 1:07-cv-01584-PLF Document 11 Filed 03/11/2009 Page 1 of 1
§ 75.404 Reasonable costs. A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to: ( a ) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award.
( b ) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: Sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award.
( c ) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area.
( d ) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government.
( e ) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.
#### John McLane, *Respondent, v.*Robert G. Dorr, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed.
§ 618.450 Athletics. ( a ) *General.* No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be treated differently from another person, or otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics offered by a recipient, and no recipient shall provide any such athletics separately on such basis.
( b ) *Separate teams.* Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, a recipient may operate or sponsor separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport. However, where a recipient operates or sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex but operates or sponsors no such team for members of the other sex, and athletic opportunities for members of that sex have previously been limited, members of the excluded sex must be allowed to try out for the team offered unless the sport involved is a contact sport. For the purposes of these Title IX regulations, contact sports include boxing, wrestling, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball, and other sports the purpose or major activity of which involves bodily contact.
( c ) *Equal opportunity.* ( 1 ) A recipient that operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics shall provide equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes. In determining whether equal opportunities are available, the designated agency official will consider, among other factors: ( i ) Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;
( ii ) The provision of equipment and supplies;
( iii ) Scheduling of games and practice time;
( iv ) Travel and per diem allowance;
( v ) Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring;
( vi ) Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
( vii ) Provision of locker rooms, practice, and competitive facilities;
( viii ) Provision of medical and training facilities and services;
( ix ) Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;
( x ) Publicity.
( 2 ) For purposes of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the designated agency official may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.
( d ) *Adjustment period.* A recipient that operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics at the elementary school level shall comply fully with this section as expeditiously as possible but in no event later than one year from September 29, 2000. A recipient that operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics at the secondary or postsecondary school level shall comply fully with this section as expeditiously as possible but in no event later than three years from September 29, 2000.
§ 681.20 Can witnesses be subpoenaed? ( a ) A party wishing to procure the appearance and testimony of any individual at the hearing may request that the ALJ issue a subpoena.
( b ) A subpoena requiring the attendance and testimony of an individual may also require the individual to produce documents at the hearing.
( c ) A party seeking a subpoena shall file a written request not less than 15 days before the date of the hearing unless otherwise allowed by the ALJ for good cause shown. Such request shall specify any documents to be produced and shall designate the witnesses and describe the address and location thereof with sufficient particularity to permit such witnesses to be found.
( d ) The subpoena shall specify the time and place at which the witness is to appear and any documents the witness is to produce.
( e ) The party seeking the subpoena shall serve it in the manner prescribed in § 681.8. A subpoena on a party or upon an individual under the control of a party may be served by first class mail.
( f ) A party or the individual to whom the subpoena is directed may file with the ALJ a motion to quash the subpoena within ten days after service or on or before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance if it is less than ten days after service.
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 12

- 00180

- CR

JIMMY DON MATTHEWS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 102nd District Court Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12

- F

- 584

- 102

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jimmy Don Matthews appeals from his conviction by the trial court for criminal mischief

resulting in damage s of $1,500 .00 or more but less than $20,000 .00 , and sentence of one year in

state jail. Matthews has filed a single brief, in which he raises issues common to all of his

appeals

. 1 He argues that the trial court erred : (1) in failing to instruct the jury to disregard

testimony of a witness speaking to Matthews’ prior bad acts and extraneous offenses and (2) in

failing to grant a motion for mistrial “based on the Stat e’s willful violation of the trial court’s

ruling on Defendant’s Mot ion for Discovery.”

We addressed th e s e issue s in detail in our opinion of this date on Matthews ’ appeal in

cause number 06

- 12

- 00179

- CR . For the reasons stated therein, we likewise concl ude that error

has not been shown in this case.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: June 5, 2013

Date Decided: June 18 , 2013

Do Not Publish

1 Matthews also appeals from a conviction of criminal mischief resulting in damage of $20,000 .00 or more but less than $100,000 .00 in our cause number 06

- 12

- 00179

- CR.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2008 - 0107 Directorate Identifier: 2007NM087AD

747 - 53A2563, R3 --- 6/11/09

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket **MA Y BE VIEWED AT:**  Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
#### In the Matter of the Application of Robert F. Downing, Respondent, to Review a Determination of the Board of Elections of the City of New York. William T. Mahan, Appellant.

*Matter of Downing (Mahan),*134 App. Div. 945, affirmed.

(Argued October 27, 1909;

decided October 27, 1909.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered *541October 25, 1909, which affirmed an order of Special Term reversing a determination of the board of elections of the city of New York.

*George E. Josephs*for appellant.

No one for respondent.

Order affirmed, without costs ; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscook and Chase, JJ. Absent: Gray, J.
§ 73.735-1303 Prohibition of reprisals. ( a ) Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such authority, take or threaten to take any action against any employee as a reprisal for making a complaint or providing any information pursuant to §§ 73.735-1301 and 73.735-1302. If the complaint was made or the information was disclosed with the knowledge that it was false, or with willful disregard of its truth or falsity, any personnel action taken against the employee based on those reasons would not constitute a reprisal action.
( b ) An employee who believes that he or she has been threatened with a personnel action, any other action, or harassment or has been harmed by any action as a reprisal for having made a complaint or providing information pursuant to § 73.735-1301 or § 73.735-1302 may request the Office of the Inspector General to review his or her allegations. Whenever the Inspector General has reason to believe that the allegations may be true, he or she will refer the matter to the Assistant Secretary for Personnel Administration for appropriate action. The Assistant Secretary for Personnel Administration may order a stay of any personnel action if he or she determines that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the personnel action is being taken as a reprisal for making a complaint or providing information pursuant to § 73.735-1301 or § 73.735-1302.