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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

          - 26 CFR Part 1 
          - [REG-102144-04] 
          - RIN 1545-BD10 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking. 

# SUMMARY:

This document cancels a public hearing on proposed regulations under section 1503(d) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) regarding dual consolidated losses. 

# DATES:

The public hearing originally scheduled for September 7, 2005, at 10 a.m., is cancelled. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robin R. Jones of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration) at (202) 622-7180 (not a toll-free number). 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing that appeared in the                     **Federal Register**                     on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 (70 FR 29868) announced that a public hearing was scheduled for September 7, 2005, at 10 a.m., in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service                           ( print page 52052)                        Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The subject of the public hearing is under section 1503(d) of the Internal Revenue Code. The public comment period for these regulations expired on August 17, 2005.                 

The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing, instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to submit a request to speak and an outline of the topics to be addressed. As of Wednesday, August 24, 2005, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for September 7, 2005, is cancelled. 

Cynthia E. Grigsby, 

Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). 

[FR Doc. 05-17377 Filed 8-31-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
STARK v. RATASHARA-STARK.

No. 353A04-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

R. Michael Bruce, Danbury, for Ratashara-Stark.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th day of February 2008 by Plaintiff to Amend Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of March 2008."
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00193-CV

Larry C. NAIL,

Appellant

v.

Rick GODWIN and Eagle’s Nest Christian Fellowship Church, Inc., 

n/k/a Summit Christian Center,

Appellees

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CI-08066

Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 20, 2010

AFFIRMED

Larry Nail appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit against Eagle’s Nest Christian Fellowship 

Church, Inc., n/k/a Summit Christian Center (“ENCF”) and its senior pastor Rick Godwin. The 

dismissal order at issue, however, was entered in compliance with this court’s own order in In re 

Godwin, 293 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, orig. proceeding). In that original 

proceeding, we considered whether the trial court should have refrained from exercising 

jurisdiction over Nail’s claims because each claim implicated church governance and discipline. 
04-10-00193-CV

- 2 -

Id. at 750. Based on our analysis, we conditionally granted ENCF’s petition for writ of 

mandamus and ordered the trial court to dismiss the underlying lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction 

based upon the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. Id. The trial court complied with our order. 

We now have before us the exact same case on appeal, except with a judgment of dismissal. In 

two issues, Nail argues our prior decision was wrong and should be overruled. We disagree.

Generally, a court of appeals is bound by its initial decision if there is a subsequent 

appeal in the same case. Briscoe v. Goodmark Corp., 102 S.W.3d 714, 716 (Tex. 2003) (under 

the law of the case doctrine, a question of law decided by an appellate court governs the case 

throughout its subsequent stages of litigation); Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 

1986) (“The doctrine is based on public policy and is aimed at putting an end to litigation.”). 

Thus, in a subsequent appeal, instructions given to a trial court in the first appeal will ordinarily 

be enforced. Wall v. Wall, 143 Tex. 418, 186 S.W.2d 57, 58 (1945). However, a court of 

appeals may re-visit its original decision when the appellate court concludes, on the second 

appeal, that its original decision was “clearly erroneous.” Briscoe, 102 S.W.3d at 716-17. We 

find no such error. Here, the record before the court has not changed. The parties and issues are 

the same. No new evidence has been developed, no new law has been decided, and Nail asserts 

no new arguments. Cf. id. at 717 (court has some discretion to revisit a prior decision if clearly 

erroneous or based on an incomplete record); In re Estate of Chavana, 993 S.W.2d 311, 315 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.) (dicta in prior decision reversing and remanding case to 

trial court without instructions was called into question by intervening and controlling higher 

court decision). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Nail’s lawsuit.

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
# Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1159/2014Show full title

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1159/2014 of 30 October 2014 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006            concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1159/2014                     

# of 30 October 2014

# implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus(1), and in particular Article 8a(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)On 18 May 2006, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 765/2006.

(2)The Council considers that there are no longer grounds for keeping certain persons and entities on the list of persons and                              entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006.

(3)Furthermore, the information relating to certain persons and entities on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive                              measures as set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 should be updated.

(4)Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 October 2014.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

S. Gozi                            

## ANNEXU.K.

### I.The following persons and entities are deleted from the list set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006:U.K.

#### A.**Persons**U.K.

#### B.**Entities**U.K.

### II.The entries for the following persons and entities set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 are replaced by the following:U.K.

#### A.**Persons**U.K.

#### B.**Entities**U.K.

1

OJ L 134, 20.5.2006, p. 1.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 10/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 10/2013 of 9 January 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 10/2013                     

# of 9 January 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 January 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

José Manuel Silva Rodríguez                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGES 2 AND 3 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE AND IS QUALIFIED 
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    114,953
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               348,271
<PP&E>                                       4,245,054
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,593,707
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,369,993
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,763,127
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,561
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,979,593
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,369,993
<SALES>                                      4,645,856
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,645,856
<CGS>                                        4,457,940
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,457,940
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               326,941
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              51,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (190,125)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (190,125)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (190,125)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. CHATMAN.

No. COA07-1499.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 1, 2008.

Certification Date July 21, 2008.

Appeal from Randolph (07CRS17).

Case reported without published opinion. Appeal dismissed.
POWERS v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.

No. COA07-1218.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 17, 2008.

Certification Date July 7, 2008.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. NO. 268384).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 693/2014Show full title

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 693/2014 of 23 June 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive            measures in view of the situation in Syria         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 693/2014                     

# of 23 June 2014

# implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/ 2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation                           in Syria(1), and in particular Article 32(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)On 18 January 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.

(2)The information relating to one person listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 should be updated.

(3)In view of the gravity of the situation, twelve persons should be added to the list of natural and legal persons, entities                              or bodies subject to restrictive measures in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.

(4)Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 23 June 2014.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

C. Ashton                            

## ANNEXU.K.

### 1.The entry concerning the person listed below, as set out in Section A of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, is replaced                        by the following entry:U.K.

### 2.The following persons are added to the list of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies set out in Section A of Annex                        II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012:U.K.

1

OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 1.
EXHIBIT 32


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                        AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                          ALL-AMERICAN SPORTPARK, INC.
                      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB of All-American SportPark, Inc. for the quarter ending March
31, 2007:

     (1) complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of All-
American SportPark, Inc.


Dated:  April 14, 2008



/s/ Ronald Boreta
Ronald Boreta
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) and
Principal Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to All-American SportPark, Inc.
and will be retained by All-American SportPark, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 476 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 476

 To amend chapter 3 of title 28, United States Code, to provide for 11 
 circuit judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
                          of Columbia Circuit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 1, 2007

 Mr. Grassley (for himself and Mr. Sessions) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend chapter 3 of title 28, United States Code, to provide for 11 
 circuit judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
                          of Columbia Circuit.

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

SECTION 1. JUDGES ON THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 
              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.

    (a) In General.--The table under section 44(a) of title 28, United 
States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to the District 
of Columbia and inserting the following:

``District of Columbia......................................      11''.
    (b) Existing Vacancy Not Filled.--In order to comply with the 
amendment made under subsection (a), 1 of the vacancies of circuit 
judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit which existed on the date preceding the date of the 
enactment of this Act, shall not be filled.
                                 <all>
```
S. 3352 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

An Act 

To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS. 

(a) EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS.—Section 2(a) of the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 

note) is amended by striking ‘‘July 31, 2008’’ and inserting ‘‘August 

15, 2008’’. 

(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section, or in 

the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 as amended by this 

Act, shall be construed to limit or otherwise alter the authorizations 

of appropriations for, or the durations of, programs contained in 

the amendments made by the Higher Education Reconciliation Act 

of 2005 (Public Law 109–171), by the College Cost Reduction and 

Access Act (Public Law 110–84), or by the Ensuring Continued 

Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–227) to 

the provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) 

shall take effect as if enacted on July 31, 2008. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 22, 2022

NO. 03

- 22

- 00098

- CV

C. G. , Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE J USTI CES TRIANA, KELLY, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the decree terminati ng parental rights signed by the tr i a l court on

February 9, 2022

. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds

that there was no reversible error in the decree

. Therefo re, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s

terminati o n decree

. Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of

costs is made.
# 60th Anniversary of the Liberation of the Auschwitz 

At the Auschwitz concentration camp, evil found willing servants and innocent victims. For almost 5 years, Auschwitz was a factory for murder where more than a million lives were taken. It is a sobering reminder of the power of evil and the need for people to oppose evil wherever it exists. It is a reminder that when we find anti-Semitism, we must come together to fight it.

In places like Auschwitz, evidence of the horror of the Holocaust has been preserved to help the world remember the past. We must never forget the cruelty of the guilty and the courage of the victims at Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps.

During the Holocaust, evil was systematic in its implementation and deliberate in its destruction. The 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz is an opportunity to pass on the stories and lessons of the Holocaust to future generations. The history of the Holocaust demonstrates that evil is real, but hope endures.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 27, 2005, as the 60th anniversary of the Liberation of the Auschwitz Concentration Camp. I call upon all Americans to observe this occasion with appropriate ceremonies and programs to honor the victims of Auschwitz and the Holocaust. May God bless their memory and their families, and may we always remember.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fifth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-ninth. 

[FR Doc. 05-1776

Billing code 3195-01-P
#### In the Matter of Robert G. Giunta, an Attorney, Resignor.

[801 NYS2d 169]

Voluntary resignation accepted and name removed from roll of attorneys *(see Matter of Manown,*240 AD2d 83 [1998]). Present—Green, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Pine and Lawton, JJ.