alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Plant Introduction Research: Ames, IA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Main Menu
                        Home page
                                    About the Plant Introduction Station
                                    Crops
                                    Entomology
                                    Facilities
                                    Pathology
                                    Seed Storage
                                    Seed Viability
                                    Annual Reports
                                    Ash Conservation ProjectSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Plant Pathology Programheadline bar Main


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00315-CV

Texas Cityview Care Center LP d/b/a 

Cityview Care Center

v.

Francesca D. Foster

§

§

§

§

§

From County Court at Law No. 1

of Tarrant County (2012-005307-1)

February 19, 2015

Opinion by Justice Gardner

(p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/S/ Anne Gardner______________

 Justice Anne Gardner
# L_2008267EN.01003201.xml

| 8.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 267/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 267/32

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 971/2008 of 3 October 2008 concerning a new use of a coccidiostat as additive in feedingstuffs

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 265 of 4 October 2008
  )

On page 5, the Annex is replaced as follows:

‘ANNEX

| Registration number of additive | Name and registration number of person responsible for putting additive into circulation | Additive
  (Trade name) | Composition, chemical formula, description | Species or category of animal | Maximum age | Minimum content | Maximum content | Other provisions | End of period of authorisation | Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) in the relevant foodstuffs of animal origin |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| mg of active substance/kg of complete feedingstuff |
| Coccidiostats and other medicinal substances |
| E 771 | Janssen Pharmaceutica nv | Diclazuril 0,5 g/100 g
  (Clinacox 0,5 % Premix) | Additive composition: | Diclazuril: 0,5 g/100 g |

Registration number of additive

Name and registration number of person responsible for putting additive into circulation

Additive

(Trade name)

Composition, chemical formula, description

Species or category of animal

Maximum age

Minimum content

Maximum content

Other provisions

End of period of authorisation

Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) in the relevant foodstuffs of animal origin

mg of active substance/kg of complete feedingstuff

Coccidiostats and other medicinal substances

E 771

Janssen Pharmaceutica nv

Diclazuril 0,5 g/100 g

(Clinacox 0,5 % Premix)

Additive composition:

Diclazuril: 0,5 g/100 g

| | Soybean meal: 99,25 g/100 g |
| --- | --- |

Soybean meal: 99,25 g/100 g

| | Polyvidone K 30: 0,2 g/100 g |
| --- | --- |

Polyvidone K 30: 0,2 g/100 g

| | Sodium hydroxide: 0,0538 g/100 g |
| --- | --- |

Sodium hydroxide: 0,0538 g/100 g

Active substance:

| | Diclazuril C17H9Cl3N4O2, (±)-4-chlorophenyl[2,6-dichloro-4-(2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-3,5-dioxo-1,2,4-triazin-2-yl) phenyl]acetonitrile, |
| --- | --- |

Diclazuril C17H9Cl3N4O2, (±)-4-chlorophenyl[2,6-dichloro-4-(2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-3,5-dioxo-1,2,4-triazin-2-yl) phenyl]acetonitrile,

| | CAS number: 101831-37-2 |
| --- | --- |

CAS number: 101831-37-2

Related impurities:

| | Degradation compound (R064318): < 0,2 % |
| --- | --- |

Degradation compound (R064318): < 0,2 %

| | Other related impurities (R066891, R066896, R068610, R070156, R068584, R070016): < 0,5 % individually |
| --- | --- |

Other related impurities (R066891, R066896, R068610, R070156, R068584, R070016): < 0,5 % individually

| | Total impurities: < 1,5 % |
| --- | --- |

Total impurities: < 1,5 %

Rabbits

—

1

1

Use prohibited at least one day before slaughter.

24 October 2018

2 500  μg diclazuril/kg of wet liver

1 000  μg diclazuril/kg of wet kidney

150 μg diclazuril/kg of wet muscle

300 μg diclazuril/kg of wet fat’

---
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2255 

To suspend temporarily the duty on on Flonicamid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 11, 2005 

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on on Flonicamid. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FLONICAMID. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.05.70 N-(Cyanomethyl)–4- 

(trifluoromethyl)–3- 

pyridinecarboxamide 

(Flonicamid) (CAS No. 

158062–67–0) (provided for 

in subheading 2933.39.27) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 
2 

•HR 2255 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
KBS RII Q4 2014 Exhibit 10.9






Exhibit 10.9
SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE
This SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE (this "Amendment") is made this _____ day of
November 2, 2009 (the "Effective Date"), by and between US REAL ESTATE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Texas limited partnership ("Landlord") and THE UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, INC., an Arizona corporation (''Tenant'').


RECITALS
A.    Landlord and Tenant entered into that certain Lease Agreement dated June 29, 2009, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Lease dated August 11, 2009 (collectively, the "Lease") by which Tenant leased from Landlord approximately 439,070 rentable square feet (the "Premises") located at 1625 Fountainhead Parkway and 1601 Fountainhead Parkway, Tempe, Arizona 85282 (the "Buildings").
B.    The parties now wish to amend the Lease as of the Effective Date subject to and on the terms and conditions set forth below.
AMENDMENT
1.    Defined Terms.   Terms in this Amendment shall have the same meaning as such terms have in the Lease and Work Letter unless otherwise noted in this Amendment.
2.    Lease Amendment.
(a)    The first paragraph of Section 1.1(i) is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
TERM OF LEASE:    The term ( and rental payments) shall
commence on the Commencement Date as set forth in Exhibit "G."
The anticipated Commencement Date for Office A is December 1,
2011 and for Office B is July 1, 2011.  The Lease shall expire at
11:59 p.m. Arizona time on the day preceding the twelfth (12th)
anniversary of the later of (I) Commencement Date for Office A, and (II) the Commencement Date for Office B.


Number of Months:    144 Months from later of the 
Commencement Date for Office A or Office B.


3.    Ratification.  Landlord and Tenant each hereby reaffirm its rights and obligations under the Lease as modified by this Amendment.  In the event of a conflict of ambiguity between the Lease and this Amendment, the terms and provisions of this Amendment shall control.


4.    Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in several counterparts each of which when executed and delivered is an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument.









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have each executed this Amendment on the dates written below their names.




LANDORD:


US REAL ESTATE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Texas limited
partnership


By: /s/ Bruce C. Petersen
Name: Bruce C. Petersen
Title: Executive Managing Director




TENANT:


THE UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, INC.,
an Arizona corporation


By: /s/ William J. Swirtz
Name: William J. Swirtz
Title: President of Apollo Development and Authorized Officer


By:  /s/ Brian L. Swartz
Name:  Brian L Swartz
Title:  Senior VP Financial Officer and Treasurer



2
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129124 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 129124 

 COA: 260944 

Gladwin CC: 03-001127-FC 

JASON ADAM HUGHES,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 29, 2005 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would hold this case in abeyance for People v Drohan, lv gtd 472 Mich 

881 (2005). 

d1121 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2005 

Clerk
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-5061

MARIA L. PEREIRA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 09-CV-035,

Judge Lawrence J. Block.

ON MOTION

Before NEWMAN, RADER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

The United States moves to summarily affirm the United States Court of Federal

Claims' dismissal of Maria L. Pereira's complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

Pereira filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the United

States owed her $7.5 billion dollars in damages because she was escorted out of a

Department of Justice building by security and due to her subsequent hospital

admission. Pereira's complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as sounding in

tort. Pereira appealed.

We agree with the United States that summary affirmance is warranted.

Summary affirmance of a case "is appropriate, inter alia when the position of one party
is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the

outcome of the appeal exists." Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir.

1994). The Court of Federal Claims correctly determined that Pereira did not identify a

claim based upon a money-mandating statute, regulation, or constitutional provision

and correctly determined that it does not have jurisdiction over tort claims.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion for summary affirmance is granted.

All sides shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

JUN -3 2009

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date

cc:	Maria L. Pereira

Russell A. Shultis, Esq.

s19

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

I

JUN

.0

03 woo

JAN HORNAL1

CLERK

2009-5061	 2
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Northeast Area
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        
                Northeast Area Cities

                    Washington, D.C.
                            Newark, Delaware
                            Boston, Massachusetts
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BHNRC)
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BARC)
                            Frederick, Maryland
                            Orono, Maine
                            Geneva, New York
                            Ithaca, New York
                            University Park, Pennsylvania
                            Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
                            Kearneysville, West Virginia
                            Leetown, West Virginia
                            Burlington, Vermont


                    Civil Rights & EEO Policy StatementsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Docs Historical Perspectives







Templateheadline bar  Historical Perspectives Picture index AFSRC Home


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### NICHOLSON, Appellant, v. TOWN OF STILLWATER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 26, 1912.)

Action by Elizabeth M. Nicholson, as administrator, etc., of William S. Nicholson, deceased, against the Town of Stillwater.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. See, also, 145 App. Div. 900, 129 N. Y. Supp. 1137.

BETTS, J., dissents.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 10310 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ERIKA MIREYA RAMIREZ LUNA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:17

- CR

- 64

- 2

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Erika Mireya
Ramirez Luna has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ramirez Luna has filed a r esponse. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of
Ramirez Luna ’s claims of ine ffective assistan ce of trial counsel; we therefore

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 16, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-10310 Document: 00514684724 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/16/2018No. 18

- 10310

2 decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014 )

. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Ramirez Luna ’s response. We concur with

co unsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolo us issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. To the extent Ramirez Luna moves for the appointment of new appellate counsel, her motion for the appointment of new appellate
counsel is DENIED. Case: 18-10310 Document: 00514684724 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/16/2018
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 125 (Friday, July 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35328-35329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14217]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

[212A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900253G]

Indian Gaming; Approval by Operation of Law of Tribal-State Class 
III Gaming Compact in the State of Indiana

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice publishes the approval by operation law of the 
compact between the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians (Tribe) and the 
State of Indiana (State) providing for the conduct of Tribal class III 
gaming by the Tribe.

DATES: The compacts take effect on July 2, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming, Mailstop 3543, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240, 
telephone (202) 219-4066, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, 25 
U.S.C. 2701 et seq., (IGRA) provides the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary) with 45 days to review and approve or disapprove a Tribal-
State compact governing the conduct of class III gaming activity on the 
Tribe's Indian lands. 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(8). If the Secretary does not 
approve or disapprove a Tribal-State compact within the 45 days, IGRA 
provides that the Tribal-State compact is considered to have been 
approved by the Secretary but only to the extent the compact is 
consistent with IGRA. 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(8)(C). The IGRA also requires 
the Secretary of the Interior to publish in the Federal Register notice 
of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class 
III gaming activities on Indian lands. 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(8(D). The 
Department's regulations at 25 CFR 293.4, require all compacts and 
amendments to be reviewed and approved by the Secretary prior to taking 
effect. The Secretary took no action on the Compact between the Pokagon 
Band of Potawatomi Indians

[[Page 35329]]

and the State of Indiana. Therefore, the Compact is considered to have 
been approved, but only to the extent it is consistent with IGRA. See 
25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(8)(C).

Bryan Newland,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2021-14217 Filed 7-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
```
The Honorable Patrick A. Conmy, United States District Judge for the District 1 of North Dakota. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

__________________ Nos. 97-2805/97-3454

__________________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeals from the United States * District Court for the Randy M. Oster, * District of North Dakota. * Appellant, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Lois M. Oster, * * Defendant. *

___________ Submitted: April 29, 1998 Filed: May 4, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, Randy M. Oster, co -defendant with his wife in an e viction action initiated by the United States, appeals from the district court & s denial 1 of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions and its issuance of a writ of assistance. Oster-2-

argues on appeal that he is entitled to Rule 60(b) relief bec ause the district court lacked jur isdiction to enter the eviction order, and the Osters were denied a full redemptio n period. After careful review we con clude the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Oster Rule 60(b) relief. See Schultz v. Commerce First Fin. , 24 F.3d 1023, 1024 (8th Cir. 1994). W e also conclude Oster & s argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the writ of a ssistance is meritless. See Lara v. Secretary of Interior , 820 F.2d 1535, 1543 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JERRY A. MERCER, JR., AND JERRY A. MERCER, III,

Respondents

v.

MARTIN P. NEWELL, JR. AND ACTIVE RADIATOR REPAIR CO.,

Petitioners :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 260 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11 th day of May, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED

, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all

remaining issues. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

This Court in Martin only recognized an exception to the WCA for certain fraudulent misrepresentation claims, and no subsequent court has applied

the Martin exception to any other types of claims. Did the Superior Court therefore err in ordering that Respondents could proceed with their medical monitoring, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims

under the Martin exception?