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 Defense

###### Department of the Air Force 

# AGENCY:

Department of the Air Force, HQ USAF Scientific Advisory Board, DOD. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) will meet on 10 April 2007 at Air Intelligence Agency (AIA), Lackland Air Force Base, TX. The purpose of the meeting is to hold the SAB Spring quarterly meeting. The day will be spent in classified briefings and discussion with Air Intelligence Agency to learn about their roles and mission. Visits will also be made to various tenant units also at Lackland Air Force Base. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the Department of Defense has determined that the meeting shall be closed to the public. The Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the Office of the Air Force General Counsel, has determined in writing that the public interest requires that all sessions of this meeting be closed to the public because they will be concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(1) and (9)(B) of Title 5 United States Code. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant Colonel Kyle Gresham, Executive Director, Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, 1180 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1040, (703) 697-4811. 

Bao-Anh Trinh, 

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

 [FR Doc. E7-5447 Filed 3-23-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5000-04-P
No. 57378.

protests 169582-K, etc. (New York).

#### China Pottery Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion of

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the articles in question consist of silent butlers, smoothing irons, and various other trays, the composition of which is the same in all material respects as the merchandise involved in *Ignaz*
      *470
      *Strauss & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 342, C. D. 710), *The Fan Co.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 42, C. D. 1261), and *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(28 Cust. Ct. 280, C. D. 1423). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of the decisions cited, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “A,” entered prior to May 22, 1948,. at 30 percent under the provision in paragraph 339, as modified by the trade agreement with Iran (T. D. 51067), for household utensils, composed wholly or in chief value of brass, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, and the items entered' subsequent to May 22, 1948, at 15 percent under said provision in paragraph 339, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 51802), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 51909); (2) the items marked' with the letter “B” at 20 percent under paragraph 339, as modified by T. D. 51802, as household utensils, composed wholly or in chief value of copper, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver; (3) the items marked with the letter “C” at 25 percent under paragraph 339, as modified by T. D. 51802, as household utensils, plated with silver on copper; and (4) the items marked with the letter *“T>”*at 22}£ percent under the provision in paragraph 397, as modified by T. D. 51802, for articles composed wholly or in chief value of copper, not plated with platinum, gold', or silver.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ELIZABETH VISCAINO,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00239-CR

Appeal from the

County Court

of Presidio County, Texas

(TC#5810)

O R D E R

The Court on its own motion ORDERS the Official Court Reporter for the County Court 

of Presidio County, Texas, to electronically submit a supplemental reporter’s record containing 

State’s Exhibit No. 1 (Receipt), State’s Exhibit No. 2 (“Disk”), and State’s Exhibit 3 (written). 

The supplemental reporter’s record is due in this Court on or before December 23, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
KWK 10-K 2014.12.31 EX10.27


Exhibit 10.27
[Quicksilver Resources Inc. Letterhead]


November 18, 2014
Stan G. Page
[Address Redacted]
Dear Stan:
Quicksilver Resources is pleased to offer you a bonus to be awarded in the form of cash and a restricted share grant of Quicksilver Resources stock in appreciation of your efforts on behalf of the Company.
Cash Award.  The cash award of $400,000 will be paid, less applicable required taxes and authorized deductions, on December 1, 2014 (the “Payment Date”); provided that you remain an active, regular full-time employee of the Company or its subsidiaries in good standing through the Payment Date.  In the event that you cease to be an active, regular full-time employee in good standing prior to the one-year anniversary of the Payment Date, you will be required to repay the full amount of the cash award on a gross (before tax) basis unless (a) there has been a Change in Control (as defined in the Company’s Seventh Amended and Restated 2006 Equity Plan as may be amended from time to time in accordance with its terms, the “Equity Plan”) on or prior to the date of your termination of employment or (b) your employment terminates (i) as a result of a reduction in force, which termination is due to no fault of yours, subject to your execution and non-revocation of a release agreement satisfactory to the Company, (ii) due to disability (as determined by the Company’s Compensation Committee in good faith) or (iii) your death.
Restricted Share Award.  The restricted share award of 300,000 shares will be granted on November 18, 2014 (the “Grant Date”) and will vest as to one third of the shares on each of the first three anniversaries of the Grant Date, subject to the terms and conditions of the Company’s Seventh Amended and Restated 2006 Equity Plan and your Restricted Share award agreement, including that you remain an active, regular full-time employee in good standing through each vesting date, subject to a Change in Control (as defined in the Equity Plan) or you experiencing a termination of employment that results in accelerated vesting as set forth in your Restricted Share award agreement.
This letter agreement (together with, as applicable, any document that evidences the award of your restricted shares) is the entire agreement between the parties and any amendments or revisions of this agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties.  This letter agreement does not constitute an employment agreement and shall not be construed to change the at-will-employment terms under which you are employed.
Please indicate your acceptance of this agreement by signing the attached duplicate copy of this agreement and return it to the Human Resources Department in Fort Worth, Attn: Anne Self, no later than November 25, 2014.
Thank you for your loyalty to and efforts on behalf of Quicksilver.
Sincerely,
/s/ Glenn Darden
Glenn Darden
President and Chief Executive Officer
I have read and understand the contents of this letter agreement.  I accept the provisions of the agreement as set forth above.
/s/ Stan G. Page                11/18/14        
Executive                Date
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FE BRUARY 21, 2020

NO. 03

- 19

- 00834

- CV

David Rush, Appellant

v.

The Estate of Rebecca Chaka Rush, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTI CE ROSE, JUSTICES BA KER AND TRIANA
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on August 20, 2019 . Having

reviewed the record , the Court holds that David Rush has not prosecuted his appeal and did not

comply with a notice from the C lerk of this C ourt

. Therefore, the Court dismis ses the appeal for

want of prosecution. A ppellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and

in the court below.
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*William F. Quinn, *v.*William R. Grace, *Mayor of the City of New York.*

Writ discharged. Opinion by Dwight, J.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-11026 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. STEPHEN DURWIN DOBBINS Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CR-135-5 Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Stephen Durwin Dobbins has moved for leave towithdrawand has filed a briefin accordancewith Andersv. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Dobbins has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibiliti es herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D August 20, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
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 Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated November 21, 2006, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on December 1, 2006, (71 FR 69591), JFC Technologies, LLC., 100 W. Main Street, Bound Brook, New Jersey 08805, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule II: Drug
ScheduleDiphenoxylate (9170)
IIHydrocodone (9193)
II
 The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of JFC Technologies, LLC to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated JFC Technologies, LLC to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: March 8, 2007. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. E7-5394 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7475** 

ALLEN WRIGHT , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

JASON WEBBER; RL TURNER; TIM RILEY; ANN HALLMAN; MARY COLEMAN; DENNIS PATTERSON; CHRISTINE THOMPSON; GARY LANE; MAJOR PARRISH; MRS MIDDLEBROOKS; DEBRA MANESS; MARY MCCABE; LT BATES; MRS WHITNER; JERRY ALEXANDER; PRINCIPAL MORROW; MICHAEL FOWLER; P CRIDER , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Ai ken

. Terry L. Wooten , District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv
- 02199

- TLW )

Submitted : January 22, 2013 Decided: January 24, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Allen Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD, PATRICK, POSTON, HEMPHILL & ROPER, LLC, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Allen Wright appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. Wright has
also filed a motion for appointment of counsel and injunctive

relief. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. According ly, we deny Wright’s motion and affirm the

district court ’s judgment

. Wright v. Webber , No. 1:11

- cv
- 02199

- TLW (D.S.C. Aug. 13, 2012). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
(V. D. 94)

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. WH 85050; 908024.

(Decided January 8, 1959)

*Eugene B. Pichrell*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the first division of this court in *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States,*41 Cust. Ct. 340, Abstract 62227, and it has been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the Parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the above remands of protest consists of Enlargers, Accessory Lenses, and Printing Boards, which were the subject of a judgment and decision by the First Division of this Court, in the case of *Manca, Inc.*vs. *The United States,*Abstract 62227 of August 7, 1958, wherein it is stated *“* *** and remand the matters pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 2636(d), for further proceedings before a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided for by law”.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the time of the exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such or’ similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States were as follows:

> *419Remand of Protest 308918-K/17126-56

> U.S. Invoice Less Dollars Price ea. Discount per each Entry No. Merchandise

> $214. 80 48% $111. 70 WH 85050_ 6 Enlargers Focomat* lia— TYZOO-FPYOO

> 13. 73 Accessory lenses_ 26. 40 48%

> 7. 24 Printing Boards_ 13. 92 48%

> Remand of Protest 322110-K/7442-57

> 908024- 6 Enlargers Focomat* Ila— 214.80 48% TYZOO-FPYOO 111. 70

> Accessory lenses_ 26. 40 48% 13. 73

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above remands of protest may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, and I hold such dutiable value for each of the articles to be as hereinabove set forth in the stipulation of submission. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

*

Lens included is not component in chief value.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE 

JEFFRY N. GRIMES

:

:

:

No. 46 WM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of May, 2023, the Application for Extraordinary Relief is 

DENIED, and the Applications for Intervention are DISMISSED AS MOOT. 

Justice Brobson notes his dissent.
No. 52691.

protests 138259-K, etc. (New York).

#### Smoking Pipes, Incorporated, et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose any error in the action of the collector, the protests were overruled.
No. 54125.

#### Atlas Cordage Co. *v.*United States,

protests 992994-G, 992995-G, and 36957-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
#### L. L. Mizelle v. Rex Sweat, Sheriff, Duval County.

177 So. 709.

Division A.

Opinion Filed December 9, 1937.

Rehearing Denied January 5, 1938.

*346
      *Carlton C. Arnow,*for Appellant;

*Edward S. Hemphill,*for Appellee.

Terrell, J.

The Appellant, a citizen and resident of Du-val County, with cattle ranging in St. Johns County, brought suit to restrain the Sheriff of Duval County from enforcing the provisions of Chapter 18510, Acts of 1937, better known as the Duval County No Fence Law against him. The grounds relied on for injunctive relief are substantially the same as those relied on to' strike down the Act in *In Re*Barber, decided this, date, the same Act being brought in question and facts in both cases being similar except that the Appellant in this case was a resident of Duval County. The application for temporary restraining order was denied and this appeal was prosecuted therefrom.

The judgment below is reversed on authority of *In Re*C. M. Barber, decided this date, with directions to grant the relief prayed for pending the construction of a line fence between Duval and St. Johns Counties.

Reversed.

Ellis, C. J., and Buford, J., concur.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
#### Cheri L. Savigny, Appellant, v Marrano / Marc Equity Corporation, Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. TRS Heating & Air Conditioning, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 592]

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiff in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The record establishes that plaintiff fell from a stepladder while installing duct work at the job site. It is undisputed that no safety devices were provided at the job site. Defendant Marrano / Marc Equity Corporation (Marrano), as owner of the property is, therefore, absolutely liable for plaintiff’s injuries *(see, Heath v Soloff Constr.,*107 AD2d 507, 510-511; *see also, Haimes v New York Tel. Co.,*46 NY2d 132, 137). Contrary to the assertions of her employer, third-party defendant, TRS Heating & Air Conditioning (TRS), plaintiff was not a recalcitrant worker. "The mere failure by plaintiff to follow safety instructions does not render plaintiff a recalcitrant worker” *(Young v Syroco, Inc.,*217 AD2d 1011, 1012).

The court further erred in denying the cross motion of Marrano for contractual and common-law indemnification against TRS. The record establishes that Marrano was only vicariously liable under the Labor Law and is therefore entitled to common-law indemnification from TRS, which actually supervised, directed and controlled the work giving rise to plaintiff’s injury *(see, Chapel v Mitchell,*84 NY2d 345, 347; *see also, Gillmore v Duke/ Fluor Daniel,*221 AD2d 938 [decided herewith]; *Nappo v Menorah Campus,*216 AD2d 876).

The contract between Marrano and TRS required TRS to indemnify Marrano for any injuries "arising out of performance of the work under this contract including injuries to persons”. Marrano established by proof in evidentiary form that the injuries of plaintiff arose out of her performance of the work of the contract and that Marrano was not negligent. General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 is not applicable and Marrano is entitled to a conditional judgment of indemnification *943against TRS under the terms of the contract *(see, Brown v Two Exch. Plaza Partners,*76 NY2d 172, 179-180; *cf., Gillmore v Duke/ Fluor Daniel, supra).*

We, therefore, modify the order on appeal by granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and by granting Marrano’s cross motion for a conditional judgment against TRS based upon contractual and common-law indemnification. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J.—Labor Law.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1962

BEATRICE DOWNS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TERRY MCAULIFFE, Governor of Virginia,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:17-cv-00760-REP)

Submitted: February 19, 2019 Decided: February 26, 2019

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Beatrice Downs, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Kenneth Page, OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Beatrice Downs appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint

for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Downs v. 

McAuliffe, No. 3:17-cv-00760-REP (E.D. Va. July 27, 2018). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED