alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, NIDDK Diabetes Centers Applications.                              ( print page 25323)    

*Date:*                         July 22-24, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         3 p.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Gaithersburg Marriott Washington Center, 9751 Washingtonian Boulevard, Gaithersburg, MD 20878.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Atul Sahai, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 908, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-2242,                         *sahaia@niddk.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos.  93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

Dated: April 27, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-2184 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit 32.1
 
 
 Certification
 Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
 As Adopted Pursuant to
 Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2010 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Samuel L. Neese, Jr., Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:
 
 1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.
 
 
 
 
 
 /s/Samuel L. Neese, Jr.
 Samuel L. Neese, Jr.
 Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer
 March 30, 2011


51
§ 190.20-5 Intent. ( a ) The accommodations provided for officers, crew, and scientific personnel on all vessels must be securely constructed, properly lighted, heated, drained, ventilated, equipped, located, arranged, and, where practicable, shall be insulated from undue noise, heat, and odors.
( b ) Provided the intent of this subpart is met, consideration may be given by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection to relax the requirements relating to the size and separation of accommodations for scientific personnel.
4:14-cv-13958-TGB-MKM Doc # 14 Filed 01/12/15 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 292
4:14-cv-13958-TGB-MKM Doc # 14 Filed 01/12/15 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 293
4:14-cv-13958-TGB-MKM Doc # 14 Filed 01/12/15 Pg 3 of 8 Pg ID 294
4:14-cv-13958-TGB-MKM Doc # 14 Filed 01/12/15 Pg 4 of 8 Pg ID 295
4:14-cv-13958-TGB-MKM Doc # 14 Filed 01/12/15 Pg 5 of 8 Pg ID 296
4:14-cv-13958-TGB-MKM Doc # 14 Filed 01/12/15 Pg 6 of 8 Pg ID 297
4:14-cv-13958-TGB-MKM Doc # 14 Filed 01/12/15 Pg 7 of 8 Pg ID 298
4:14-cv-13958-TGB-MKM Doc # 14 Filed 01/12/15 Pg 8 of 8 Pg ID 299
# C_2013367EN.01001801.xml

| 14.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-344/12) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid granted by the Italian Republic for the benefit of Alcoa Trasformazioni - Commission Decision 2010/460/EC declaring that aid to be incompatible and ordering its recovery - Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

2013/C 367/30

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and C. Gerardis, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have adopted the necessary measures to comply with Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2009) 8112 final of 19 November 2009, concerning State aids C 38/A/2004 (ex NN 58/2004) and C 36/B/2006 (ex NN 38/2006), implemented by the Italian Republic for Alcoa Trasformazioni srl, and infringement of Article 288 TFEU

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiary of the State aid declared to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market under Article 1 of Commission Decision 2010/460/EC of 19 November 2009 concerning State aids Nos C 38/A/2004 (ex NN 58/2004) and C 36/B/2006 (ex NN 38/2006) implemented by Italy for Alcoa Trasformazioni, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that decision |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiary of the State aid declared to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market under Article 1 of Commission Decision 2010/460/EC of 19 November 2009 concerning State aids Nos C 38/A/2004 (ex NN 58/2004) and C 36/B/2006 (ex NN 38/2006) implemented by Italy for Alcoa Trasformazioni, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that decision

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012

1

---
#### Lewis L. Younie, appellant, v. Fred Specht et al., appellees.

Filed July 1, 1916.

No. 18850.

Opinion on motion for rehearing of case reported in 99 Neb. 621.

*Rehearing denied.*

Per Curiam.

Under the statute authorizing the district court to order service by publication after hearing the application of plaintiff showing that defendants cannot be found in this state, and that the residence and place of abode of such defendants are unknown to plaintiff and to his attorney, and that by reason thereof personal service cannot be had, an order for service by publication and a judgment based thereon are not void on the ground that the application did not state the nature of the action or that it was an action in which service by publication was authorized by statute. Rev. St. 1913, sec. 7640, subd. 6; section 7641.

Rehearing denied.
§ 194.05-9 Flammable liquid chemical stores—Detail requirements. ( a ) Flammable liquids as chemical stores and reagents are governed by subparts 194.15 and 194.20.
( b ) Other flammable liquids are regulated by the appropriate portions of 49 CFR parts 172, 173, and 176 or part 147 of Subchapter N (Dangerous Cargoes) of this chapter.
[CGFR 67-83, 33 FR 1151, Jan. 27, 1968, as amended by CGD 86-033, 53 FR 36027, Sept. 16, 1988; 53 FR 46872, Nov. 21, 1988]
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 16030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05825]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8225]

Waiver of Restriction on Assistance to the Central Government of 
Guinea

    Pursuant to Section 7031(b)(3) of the Department of State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012 (Division I, 
Pub. L. 112-74) (``the Act''), and Department of State Delegation of 
Authority Number 245-1, I hereby determine that it is important to the 
national interest of the United States to waive the requirements of 
Section 7031(b)(1) of the Act with respect to Guinea and I hereby waive 
this restriction.
    This determination and the accompanying Memorandum of Justification 
shall be reported to the Congress, and the determination shall be 
published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: August 21, 2012.
Thomas R. Nides,
Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources.

    Editorial Note: This document was received in the Office of the 
Federal Register on March 8, 2013.

[FR Doc. 2013-05825 Filed 3-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-26-P
```
#### Walker, et al. v. American Snuff Company.

(Decided March 11, 1919.)

Appeal from Christian Circuit Court.

Appeal and Error — Absence of Brief — Presumption.—In the absence of a brief for appellants, specifying the errors for which a reversal is asked on appeal, it will be presumed that no errors exist and that the judgment is correct.

LINTON *&*CLARK for appellants.

JAMES BREATHITT for appellee.

Opinion op the Court by

William Rogers Clay, Commissioner

^Affirming.

This suit, was brought by the American Snuff Company against W. M. Walker and J. L. Humphrey, to enjoin Walker from selling a certain crop of tobacco to Humphrey, and to compel him to deliver the tobacco to plaintiff, pursuant to the terms of the contract by which he sold and agreed to deliver the tobacco to. plaintiff. The suit was based on the claim that a portion of the tobacco was necessary to meet the demands of plaintiff’s business, and that the other portion was necessary to enable plaintiff to comply with a contract by which it had sold that portion to others; that other tobacco of like character could not be purchased in the market; that plaintiff had no adequate remedy at law because damages would not compensate it for the loss incurred; that Walker was insolvent and that plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction were not granted. On final hearing, the relief prayed for was granted, and the defendants appeal.

The case is here without brief for appellants. In the absence of a brief, specifying the errors for which a reversal is asked, it will be presumed that no errors *592exist, and that the judgment is correct. Commonwealth v. Lexington & E. R. Co., 167 Ky. 442, 180 S. W. 532; Continental Insurance Co. v. Ramsey, 160 Ky. 441, 169 S. W. 855; Crawford v. Wiedemann, 158 Ky. 333, 164 S. W. 981; Brown v. Daniels, 154 Ky. 267, 157 S. W. 3.

Judgment affirmed.
Summary of Cash Compensation Arrangements


 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 Tidewater Inc. 
 Summary of Cash Compensation Arrangements With Directors 
 As of February 1, 2005 
  
 Outside directors of Tidewater Inc. receive an annual retainer of $30,000 and
a fee of $1,500 for attendance at each board meeting. The chairman of each board committee receives an additional annual retainer of $5,000, and each committee member, including the chairman, receives a fee of $1,200 for attendance at each committee
meeting. 
  
 Directors also receive reimbursement for all
reasonable expenses incurred in attending meetings, and Mr. O’Malley, the Company’s former Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, is reimbursed for the cost of secretarial support.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-18-00239-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 16th District Court

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-04048-16

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Walker and Meier, JJ.

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

JEFFREY POLK KILLIAN, Appellant

V.

ANGELA NICOLE KILLIAN, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After Appellant Jeffrey Polk Killian filed a notice of appeal on July 27, 2018, we 

notified him of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the 

trial court clerk had informed us that the trial judge had not yet signed an appealable 

order or a final judgment, making the notice of appeal premature. See Tex. R. App. P. 

26.1(a) (setting deadline to file notice of appeal “after the judgment is signed”), 27.1(a)

(providing that in a civil case, a prematurely filed notice of appeal is effective and 

deemed filed on the day of, but after, the event that begins the period for perfecting 

the appeal).

We gave the parties until August 16, 2018, to furnish this court with a signed 

copy of an appealable order and warned that we would dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction if no order was signed and furnished to us by that date. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 42.3(a) (providing for involuntary dismissal for want of jurisdiction). Because 

neither party has furnished us with said order, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f) (providing for dismissal of appeal).

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Justice

Delivered: September 27, 2018
# C_2012080EN.01002604.xml

| 17.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/26

---

Order of the General Court of 18 January 2012 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission

(Case T-362/11) (1)

1

2012/C 80/47

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.

1

---
August 3, 2015 

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Bruce D. Taylor

4501 Shadycreek Lane

Colleyville, TX 76034

Dear Ms. Newton:

In response to your letter dated July 23, 2015 addressing (No. FAA-2015-1556), I am submitting 

the following revision to the 11.81 (d).

(d) The reasons why granting your request would be in the public interest; that is, how it

would benefit the public as a whole;

In the real estate industry, the use of UAS provides consumers with a more desirable service. The 

seller can better exhibit the property they are selling by using high definition aerial photos and/or 

video. This improves the marketing and advertising of their product. As for the buyer, they are 

better able to see the product that is being offered. This includes wide angle aerial shots of the 

property which may include several acres in just one video. This leads to faster sales and 

therefore improves the economy of the real estate industry as a whole. Not only does this benefit

the real estate industry, but this also benefits the general public as a whole by reducing low lead 

fuel emission and reduces the noise of conventional general aviation aircraft flying at low levels. 

Also, the use of my UAS services will have benefits to the general public as a whole in search 

and rescue, aerial viewing of dangerous goods, and fires for Fire Departments before they 

approach dangerous situations. This can greatly improve the general safety of the public.

I hope this addresses your concerns and I look forward to exemption approval.

Sincerely,

Bruce D. Taylor
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49223, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60144, Sept. 30, 2013.

#### § 2.01-70 Right of appeal.

Any person directly affected by a decision or action taken under this part, by or on behalf of the Coast Guard, may appeal therefrom in accordance with subpart 1.03 of this chapter.

[CGD 88-033, 54 FR 50379, Dec. 6, 1989]
# C_2014184EN.01002301.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/23

---

Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 18 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Pia Braun v Region Hannover

(Case C-603/12) (1)

1

2014/C 184/33

Language of the case: German

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 101, 6. 4. 2013.

1

---
#### ANNA KATZ, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JOSEPH TABOROWSKY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Submitted October 13, 1928

Decided March 20, 1929.

Before Justices Tbenchaed, Kalisch and Lloyd.

For the appellant, *Cohen & Klein.*

For the appellee, *Henry K. Golenboclc.*

Peb Cubiah.

This is defendant’s appeal from a judgment of the Perth Amboy District Court entered upon the verdict of a jury for $135.

The plaintiff brought her action against the defendant for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by reason of defendant’s negligence in the operation of his automobile whereby it hit the automobile in which plaintiff was riding. The accident occurred at the intersection of Park avenue and Barach street, in the city of Perth Amboy.

No contention is made in the defendant’s brief that he was not negligent, nor is there any contention that the plain*312tiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The sole contention is that “nowhere in the entire evidence in the case is there the slightest testimony of any physical injuries to the plaintiff of any sort, and there is ample evidence- that the plaintiff sustained merely a condition described as nervousness or nervous shock,” and hence it is argued that the plaintiff cannot legally recover.

We think the defendant’s contention is ill-founded in point of fact. The facts are not in dispute. They are that the “shock of the two cars coming together threw her [plaintiff] forward over the seat * * * towards the glass.” The plaintiff testified: “I felt like I fell and I got excited and I don’t know what happened. I don’t even know who took me home.” She was put to bed in an extremely nervous condition which the jury had a right to infer, and did infer, resulted from the injury received in the accident. Of course, under this testimony, she was not precluded from recovery. In *Consolidated Traction Co.*v. *Lambertson,*60 *N. J. L.*457, the Court of Errors and Appeals, speaking through Mr. Justice Dixon (at *p.*458) said: “While there are decisions holding that mere fright cannot form the legal basis of an action for damages *(Mitchell*v. *Rochester Railway Co. (N. Y.),*45 *N. E. Rep.*354) it is a well-established rule that when an actionable wrong, consisting of or accompanied by personal injury, is committed, the jury, in fixing the damages, are entitled to consider the mental agitation and disorder of the plaintiff naturally and proximately resulting from the wrongful conduct of the defendant.”

The judgment will be affirmed, with costs.
#### Albert Wilkinson, *as Executor, etc., Appellant, v.*Byron E. Champlin, *Respondent.*

Judgmeht reversed and new trial ordered, eosts to abide event. Opinion by

"Barker, J.
SUPREME COURT.

#### John T. Williams agt. John P. Blumer and John D. Osterhout.

*Onondaga Special Term,*

*December,*1874.

*Taxation of costs.*

An award should be made by the court in respect to costs, where there are several defendants making separate defenses by separate answers, not united in interest, and who are entitled to costs.

Motion to set aside taxation of costs in favor of the defendants, by which they were permitted to tax two bills of costs. The recovery was thirty dollars, and for tort, and plaintiff not entitled to costs.

There does not appear anything to show that any direction was given by the trial court as to costs.

*C. A. Weaver,*for motion.

*George B. Warner,*opposed.

Hardin, J.

The question presented arises under section 306 of the Code, and has been passed upon several times since the amendment of that' section, in 1851. The eases are conclusively to the effect that an *award*should be made in respect to costs, when there are several defendants not united in interest, and making separate defenses by separate answers. It is clear these defendants were not united in interest, and that they proved and made separate defenses.

*13In *Bank of Attica agt. Wol*f decided in 1859, by the general term of the eighth district, and reported 18 Howard, 103, it was held that a judgment, entered without an award, when separate answers by defendants not united in interest, was irregular and the taxation set aside.

The learned judge cites, from 1 *Bosworth, Butler*agt. Morris, and other cases supporting the conclusion reached.

That case was cited and followed in *Zink*agt. *Attenbury*(18 *How.,*108), at general term, in 1859.

■ In the same year the same question was examined by Hogeboom, J., sitting in the Albany general term, and a similar result reached by him, and decided at said term, and reported 18 *Howard,*397. In *N. H. R. R. Co. agt. Schuyler*an award was made, and then the bills were taxed and approved, April, 1865 (29 *How.,*89).

These cases were examined in *Lindsley*agt. *Diefendorf,*by Hardin, J., and followed (43 *How.,*91).

This question was incidentally alluded to in *Hayes*agt. *Robertson.*(15 *Abb.*[N. S.], 194), by Monell-, J., and he assumes there is • a conflict ,• but the cases he refers to as adverse to those already cited, arose before the amendment, in 1851, of section 306 of the Code. The taxation of two bills of costs by the defendants without any award of costs by the court was irregular, and must be set aside, without prejudice to the defendants’ right to move for an award of costs to either or both.

The motion is granted with ten dollars costs.