alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-51171

Summary Calendar

 

MICHAEL T., by next friend Oralee T.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

EL PASO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-00-CV-252-EP

 

May 30, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael T. appeals from the district court’s judgment

denying him attorneys’ fees based on a finding that he was not a

prevailing party entitled to attorneys’ fees under the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). He argues that, despite an

administrative ruling in favor of the defendant on all issues, he

is a prevailing party because his mother Oralee T. obtained from an
1 Jason D. W. v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 205, 208

(5th Cir. 1998); Scham v. District Courts Trying Criminal Cases,

148 F.3d 554, 557 (5th Cir. 1998).

2 Jason D. W., 158 F.3d at 209.

3 Cf. Salley v. St. Tammany Parish Sch. Bd., 57 F.3d 458, 468

(5th Cir. 1995) (“Danielle was given a full evaluation as a result

of the due process hearing initiated by the Salleys, but this

result could have been obtained at any time and the Salleys were

well aware of this fact.”).

2

administrative hearing officer orders for an assessment and an

Admissions, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) committee meeting.

Whether a party is a prevailing party under the IDEA is

reviewable only for clear error.1 “[I]n IDEA cases, a prevailing

party is one that attains a remedy that both (1) alters the legal

relationship between the school district and the handicapped child

and (2) fosters the purposes of the IDEA.”2

We are persuaded that the district court did not clearly err

in determining that Michael was not a prevailing party. The end

result of Michael’s due process hearing was that he received a full

assessment and an ARD committee meeting; however, the district

court found that those results could have been obtained at any time

from the district but for his mother’s refusal to give consent to

the initial assessment.3 On this record, Michael has shown no

clear error in the district court’s determination that there was no

alteration in the parties’ legal relationship. Furthermore, we

cannot say that the district court clearly erred in determining

that the purposes of the IDEA are not fostered by encouraging
3

parents of potentially disabled children to withhold consent to an

initial assessment in order to obtain prevailing party status.

AFFIRMED.
No. 11-10248.

#### Andujar *v.*Pfister.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6885 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6885

 To amend title 3, United States Code, to include under the Electoral 
 Count Act of 1887 that the vote of an elector of a State shall not be 
 counted if, with respect to the election for President, the State did 
 not include on the ballot in the State a candidate for President who 
   was nominated by a major political party, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 22, 2023

    Mr. Higgins of Louisiana (for himself, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. 
   Burlison, Mr. Harris, Mr. Duncan, Mr. DesJarlais, Mr. Nehls, Mrs. 
 Harshbarger, Mrs. Luna, and Mr. Ogles) introduced the following bill; 
      which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 3, United States Code, to include under the Electoral 
 Count Act of 1887 that the vote of an elector of a State shall not be 
 counted if, with respect to the election for President, the State did 
 not include on the ballot in the State a candidate for President who 
   was nominated by a major political party, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Presidential Ballot Integrity Act''.

SEC. 2. REJECTION OF ELECTORAL VOTES OF A STATE IN CERTAIN CASES.

    (a) In General.--Section 15(e)(1)(B) of title 3, United States 
Code, is amended by inserting ``if, with respect to the State of the 
elector in question, a candidate for President who was nominated by a 
major political party for election to such office did not appear on the 
ballot of the State or'' after ``shall not be counted''.
    (b) Major Political Party Defined.--Section 15 of title 3, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) Major Political Party Defined.--For purposes of this section, 
the term `major political party' has the meaning given the term `major 
party' in section 9002 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
                                 <all>
```
EX-10.5



 Exhibit 10.5 

REGALWOOD GLOBAL ENERGY LTD. 

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. 

Suite 220 South 
 Washington, D.C.
20004 
 December 5, 2017 
 CIEP Sponsor Ltd. 

c/o The Carlyle Group 
 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. 

Suite 220 South 
 Washington, D.C. 20004 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 This letter will confirm
our agreement that, commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the registration statement (the “Registration Statement”) for the initial public offering (the
“IPO”) of the securities of Regalwood Global Energy Ltd. (the “Company”) and continuing until the earlier of (i) the consummation by the Company of an initial business combination or (ii) the
Company’s liquidation (in each case as described in the Registration Statement) (such earlier date hereinafter referred to as the “Termination Date”), CIEP Sponsor Ltd. shall make available to the Company certain office
space and administrative and support services as may be required by the Company from time to time, situated at 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 220 South, Washington, D.C. 20004 (or any successor location). In exchange therefore, the Company
shall pay CIEP Sponsor Ltd. a sum not to exceed $20,000 per month, respectively, on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter until the Termination Date. CIEP Sponsor Ltd. hereby agrees that it does not have any right, title, interest or
claim of any kind in or to any monies that may be set aside in a trust account (the “Trust Account”) that may be established upon the consummation of the IPO (the “Claim”) and hereby waives any Claim
it may have in the future as a result of, or arising out of, any negotiations, contracts or agreements with the Company and will not seek recourse against the Trust Account for any reason whatsoever. 

 

			
	 Very truly yours,
  

	REGALWOOD GLOBAL ENERGY LTD.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Kevin R. Gasque

	Name:	 	Kevin R. Gasque
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer










			
	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:
	
	CIEP SPONSOR LTD.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Kevin R. Gasque

		 	Name: Kevin R. Gasque
		 	Title: Director
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16984-16985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06301]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0063]


Special Local Regulation; Fort Lauderdale Air Show, Atlantic 
Ocean, Fort Lauderdale Beach, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

[[Page 16985]]


ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation for 
the Fort Lauderdale Air Show to provide for the safety of life on 
navigable waterways during this event. During the enforcement periods, 
the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with 
directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying 
a Coast Guard ensign.

DATES: The regulation in 33 CFR 100.702, Table 1 to Sec.  100.702, Item 
3, will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., each day from April 29, 2022 
through May 1, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this 
notice of enforcement, call or email Mr. Omar Beceiro, Sector Miami 
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard: Telephone: 305-535-
4317, Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dc93b1bdaef29eb9bfb9b5aeb39ca9afbfbbf2b1b5b0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d49bb9b5a6fa96b1b7b1bda6bb94a1a7b7b3fab9bdb8">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce a special local 
regulation in 33 CFR 100.702, Table 1 to Sec.  100.702, Item 3, for the 
Fort Lauderdale Air Show, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., each day from Friday 
April 29, 2022 through Sunday May 1, 2022. The Coast Guard is taking 
this action to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways 
during the event. Our regulation for recurring marine events, Sector 
Miami, 33 CFR 100.702, Table 1 to Sec.  100.702, Item 3, specifies the 
location of the regulated area which encompasses a portion of Atlantic 
Ocean east of Fort Lauderdale Beach. Only event sponsor designated 
participants and official patrol vessels will be allowed to enter the 
regulated area. During the enforcement periods, as reflected in Sec.  
100.702, if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you 
must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official 
Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
    In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, 
the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement 
period via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information 
broadcasts.

    Dated: March 22, 2022.
J. F. Burdian,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Miami.
[FR Doc. 2022-06301 Filed 3-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          66,359
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,051
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,500
<INVENTORY>                                     17,281
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               151,359
<PP&E>                                         245,731
<DEPRECIATION>                                 152,467
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,520,042
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          920,842
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,921
<OTHER-SE>                                     435,617
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,520,042
<SALES>                                        269,820
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               269,820
<CGS>                                           40,981
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  519,529
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              44,140
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (293,849)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (293,849)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)
        

</TABLE>
H. Con. Res. 353 Agreed to October 21, 1998

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of

Wednesday, October 21, 1998, or Thursday, October 22, 1998, on

a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned sine die, or until

noon on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble

pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, or until a time

designated pursuant to section 3 of this resolution; and that when

the Senate adjourns on Wednesday, October 21, 1998, or Thursday,

October 22, 1998, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent

resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned

sine die, or until noon on the second day after Members are notified

to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution.

SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader

of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority

Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall

notify the Members of the House and the Senate, respectively,

to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall

warrant it.

SEC. 3. During any adjournment of the House pursuant to

this concurrent resolution, the Speaker, acting after consultation

with the Minority Leader, may notify the Members of the House

to reassemble whenever, in his opinion, the public interest shall

warrant it. After reassembling pursuant to this section, when the

House adjourns on any day on a motion offered pursuant to this

section by its Majority Leader or his designee, the House shall
H. Con. Res. 353—2

again stand adjourned pursuant to the first section of this concurrent resolution.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
(logo) LNR

Partners, LLC

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

OF

 

LNR PARTNERS, LLC

 

 

The undersigned, Job Warshaw, being the President of LNR Partners, LLC (the "Special Servicer"), as special servicer under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the transactions listed on Schedule I hereto, hereby certifies, subject to any limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, on behalf of the Special Servicer, solely in his capacity as an authorized officer of the Special Servicer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:

 

1.        A review of the activities performed by the Special Servicer during the period commencing on January 1, 2014 and ending on December 31, 2014 (or any other shorter period set forth on Schedule I hereto) (the “Reporting Period”), and of the Special Servicer’s performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

 

2.        To the best of my knowledge, based on such review and using the applicable servicing criteria under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

LNR PARTNERS, LLC,

a Florida limited liability company

 

By:          /s/ Job Warshaw

                Job Warshaw

                President

 

 

Dated: February 23, 2015

 

 

1601 Washington Avenue • Suite 700 • Miami Beach, Florida 33139-3164

Telephone: (305) 695-5600 • Fax: (305) 695-5601

 

 

 

Schedule I

 

COMM 2014-LC17

 

COMM 2014-LC17 Mortgage Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates

 

 

17g Information Provider
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 5

           OPINION AND CONSENT OF CLARK, LADNER, FORTENBAUGH & YOUNG









                               February 21, 1996


North American Technologies Group, Inc.
4710 Bellaire Boulevard
Suite 301
Bellaire, Texas  77401

          RE:  NORTH AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC.'S       
               REGISTRATION STATEMENT ON FORM S-8
               ------------------------------------------

Gentlemen:

          We have participated in the preparation of the Registration Statement
on Form S-8 (the "Registration Statement") to be filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission by North American Technologies Group, Inc. (the "Company")
for the purpose of registering under the Securities Act of 1933 shares of common
stock of the Company, $.001 par value, which may be issued by the Company as
consideration under a Consulting Agreement dated December 1, 1995 by and between
Corporate Investor Relations, Inc. and the Company (the "Consulting Agreement").
As counsel to the Company, we have examined such corporate records, certificates
and other documents as we consider to relevant and necessary to express the
opinion hereinafter set forth.

          On the basis of the foregoing and of our consideration of such other
legal and factual matters that we have deemed
<PAGE>
 
North American Technologies Group, Inc.
February 21, 1996
Page 2


appropriate, we are of the opinion that the common stock of the Company covered
by the Registration Statement has been duly authorized and, when the options
granted under the Consulting Agreement are exercised, will be legally issued,
fully paid and non-assessable, assuming that the applicable option exercise
price (as set forth in the Consulting Agreement) is paid with respect to each
share of common stock prior to issuance and full compliance with the Consulting
Agreement is otherwise made.

          This opinion is being delivered to you in compliance with Item
601(b)(5)(i) of Regulation S-K of the Securities and Exchange Commission.  This
firm consents to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration
Statement.

                                      Very truly yours,

                                      /s/Clark, Ladner, Fortenbaugh & Young
Part of E.O. 12866 Review: Alternate text for "Regional Haze: Revisions to 

Provisions Governing Alternatives to Source -Specific Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) Determinations, Limited SIP Disapprovals , and Federal 

Implementation Plans" ; RIN 2060-AR05

Phil Lorang to: Higgins, Cortney 05/16/2012 10:29 AM

Cc: Martha Keating

From: Phil Lorang/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Martha Keating/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Courtney,

Please convey this to the other participating federal agencies today in preparation for the conversation 

tomorrow.

RIN 2060-AR05 Alternate text May 16.docx

Phil Lorang, Senior Policy Advisor

Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, EPA

919-541-5463
May 16, 2012 

"Regional Haze: Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternatives to Source-Specific Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, Limited SIP Disapprovals, and Federal 

Implementation Plans" ; RIN 2060-AR05 

The EPA proposed to leave unchanged the existing regulatory language regarding geographic 

enhancements. The purpose of this language is to allow a market-based system to accommodate 

actions taken under the RAVI provisions. The EPA first adopted such language in the 1999 

Regional Haze Rule, 64 FR 35757, and used it again in issuing regulations addressing our 

determination that CAIR provides for greater reasonable progress than BART, 70 FR 39156, and 

again in issuing regulations addressing trading program alternatives to BART in general, 71 FR 

60612, 60627. In light of the fact that our proposal did not request comment on the interplay of 

the RAVI requirements in 40 CFR 51.302-306 with the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule, 

we are not adopting any clarifying interpretation at this time. As a result, this rulemaking has no 

effect on the RAVI requirements and the obligations of states (and EPA) under these provisions. 

We expect at a later date to clarify the scope of the RAVI requirements through a rule 

amendment, general guidance, or action on a SIP or FIP in the context of a specific RAVI case.* 

Whatever the form, we intend to provide an opportunity for public comment before applying a 

new interpretation. 

__________ 

* A RAVI certification has been made for the Sherbourne County Generating Station (Sherco) in Minnesota, by the Department 

of the Interior on October 21, 2009. As Minnesota is included in the Transport Rule, the EPA expects that the scope of the RAVI

requirements as applied to sources subject to the Transport Rule will be clarified by action on the certification.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BRADLEY SCOTT EDWARDS, ET UX, 

KRISTEN EDWARDS,

 Appellants,

v.

ROBERT E. EDWARDS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-12-00032-CV

On Appeal from the

367th District Court

of Denton County, Texas 

(T.C.# 2010-50094-367) 

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee 

recover from Appellant and his sureties, if any, see TEX.R.APP.P. 43.5, on the judgment and all 

costs, both in this Court and the court below, for which let execution issue. This decision shall 

be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.