alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Prevention Bingo

Go on 

a walk

Dance around 

your house 

Create a 

#MyPreventionStory 

and share it on 

social media 

Read a 

new book

Visit your local 

farmer’s market

Practice positive 

affirmations 

Play a board 

or card game 

Learn a new 

skill/hobby 

Spend time 

outside 

Connect with a 

family member 

Try a 

mindfulness 

exercise 

Talk with 

someone 

you trust 

FREE 

SPACE

Write in 

a journal 

Create a drawing 

or artwork

Limit your 

social media 

time 

Cook a 

healthy recipe

Complete a 

workout

Put up 

a sticky note 

with a 

motivational 

message 

Try a new 

yoga pose

Try a new 

workout class 

or activity 

Watch a 

new movie 

Volunteer for 

a local 

organization 

Listen to your 

favorite song 

Spend time 

with friends
Exhibit 10.40


 





Summary of New Technology Development Consignment Agreement between
R-Tech Ueno and the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, dated April 1, 2015


 


Under this Agreement, the Japan Agency for Medical Research and
Development (“AMED”) agreed to lend R-Tech Ueno Ltd. (“R-Tech”) costs for the development
of unoprostone 0.15% eye drops (“unoprostone”) for the treatment of retinitis pigmentosa (the “Development”).
As of December 31, 2015, the outstanding loan amount stands at JPY ¥1,049,000,000 or approximately USD $9,218,328.


 


If the Development is deemed to be successful, then R-Tech will
repay the outstanding loan amount in ten equal annual instalments following such determination. In addition, in the event that
the Development results in a new marketing authorization for unoprostone, R-Tech will pay AMED a small, single-digit royalty on
net sales of the unoprostone for such indication for a period of ten years following first commercial sale.


 


If the Development is deemed to be a failure, R-Tech will repay
10% of the costs in a lump sum payment and will be released from the repayment obligations of the remaining 90%.


 


The term of the Agreement is effective until i) the Development
is deemed successful and the parties enter into a license agreement; or ii) the Development is deemed to be a failure, triggering
the repayment described above.


 


AMED may terminate the Agreement i) if R-Tech engages in an unjust
or unfair act in regard to the implementation of the Agreement; ii) If R-Tech breaches any of the provisions of the Agreement;
iii) if any researcher of R-Tech engages in an unjust act or inappropriate accounts processing; iv) if R-Tech breaches any of the
provision of any guidelines relating to public research stipends; v) if R-Tech breaches any representation and warranty regarding
anti-social forces (e.g., organized crime syndicates, cartels, gangs, etc.); vi) if R-Tech files or is filed for insolvency
proceedings; vii) if R-Tech is subject to suspension of banking transactions; or vii) if R-Tech becomes the subject of seizure
or provisional disposition.
Exhibit 23



Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
following Registration Statements of TFC Enterprises, Inc. and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated March 9, 2001, except for Note 10, as to which the date is March 28, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of TFC Enterprises, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002:



|Registration Statement Number |  | Description                                                             
|----------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Form S-8 No. 33-78376         |  | pertaining to the 1993 Employee Stock Purchase Plan                     
|Form S-8 No. 33-98680         |  | pertaining to the 1995 Long Term Incentive Plan                         
|Form S-3 No. 333-50531        |  | registration of 1,135,280 shares of common stock forissuance of warrants



/s/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Richmond, Virginia

March 28, 2003
No. 20,029.

#### Richard Heckel *v.*Shirley Heckel.

(373 P. [2d] 303)

Decided July 23, 1962.

Mr. Harry H. Haddock, Mr. David Barsotti, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Carl H. Noel, for defendant in error.

*In Department.*

*429Opinion by

Mr. Justice Pringle.

Plaintiff in error was defendant in the trial court and defendant in error was plaintiff. They will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.

Plaintiff filed an action in the District Court of Jefferson County alleging that defendant had committed acts of cruelty which entitled her to a divorce. Defendant denied the allegations of plaintiff’s claim and filed a counterclaim, alleging that the plaintiff was guilty of acts of cruelty which entitled him to a divorce.

The trial court heard the evidence which consisted solely in each of the contestants telling their story. At the conclusion of the case the trial judge found for the plaintiff on her claim and against the defendant on the counterclaim and granted a decree of divorce to plaintiff.

Defendant contends that the court should have denied the divorce to the plaintiff and granted a decree to him or at least granted a decree to him as well as to the plaintiff under C.R.S. ’53, 46-1-4 (3) as amended.

It would serve no useful purpose to recite the evidence except to point out that defendant testified that he would never reconcile with plaintiff. Suffice it to say that plaintiff’s testimony taken at face value was sufficient to support a decree in her favor. Defendant’s contention apparently is that the court should have disbelieved plaintiff’s version of the marital discord and accepted his version and therefore have granted him a decree of divorce. This the trial court did not choose to do.

We have said so many times that citation of authority is no longer necessary, that the findings of the trial court on disputed issues of fact will not be disturbed when supported by competent evidence, and we decline to do so here.

The judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Day and Mr. Justice Moore concur.
**Exhibit 32**

**Certification of Principal Executive Officers**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350**

**(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

 

The undersigned in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of MFRI, Inc. (the “Registrant’), certify that, to the best of their knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended January 31, 2009 of the Registrant, (the “Report”):

 

|   | (1)    | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                                |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                    |
|   | (2)    | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. |

 

 

 

| /s/ David Unger |
|-----------------|

David Unger

Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors

and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

April 15, 2009

 

 

| /s/ Michael D. Bennett |
|------------------------|

Michael D. Bennett

Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

April 15, 2009

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided by MFRI, Inc. and will be retained by MFRI, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 806.41 Registration and eligibility. ( a ) Project sponsors of grandfathered projects identified in § 806.40 shall submit a registration to the Commission, on a form and in a manner prescribed by the Commission, by December 31, 2019.
( b ) Any grandfathered project that fails to register under paragraph (a) of this section shall be subject to review and approval under § 806.4.
( c ) Any project that is not eligible to register under paragraph (a) of this section shall be subject to review and approval under § 806.4.
( d ) The Commission may establish fees for obtaining and maintaining registration in accordance with § 806.35.
( e ) A registration under this subpart may be transferred pursuant to § 806.6.
Opinion issued February 21, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

 

NO. 01-12-00983-CV

JESUS H. GAYTAN, Appellant

V.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-15538

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Jesus H. Gaytan has neither paid the required filing fee for this 

appeal nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 5 (“A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must 

pay—at the time an item is presented for filing—whatever fees are required by 
2

statute or Supreme Court order.”), 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing 

indigence); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 51.207 (Vernon Supp. 2012), 

§.51.941(a) (Vernon 2005), § 101.041 (Vernon Supp. 2012) (listing fees in court of 

appeals); Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and 

the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 

Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in TEX. R. APP. P. app. 

A § B(1) (listing fees in court of appeals). 

In addition, the county clerk has informed the Court that appellant has 

neither paid, nor made arrangements to pay, the fee for preparing the clerk=s 

record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b) (allowing dismissal of appeal if no clerk’s 

record filed due to appellant’s fault). 

After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did 

not respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (allowing enforcement of rule); 37.3(b) 

(allowing dismissal of appeal if no clerk’s record filed due to appellant’s fault); 

42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We dismiss 

any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 850 

To extend the authorization of appropriations to the Department of Veterans 

Affairs for purposes of awarding grants to veterans service organizations 

for the transportation of highly rural veterans. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 14, 2019 

Mr. SULLIVAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To extend the authorization of appropriations to the Department of Veterans Affairs for purposes of awarding grants 

to veterans service organizations for the transportation 

of highly rural veterans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Highly Rural Veteran 

5 Transportation Program Extension Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 850 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS TO 

2 VETERANS SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS FOR 

3 TRANSPORTATION OF HIGHLY RURAL VET4 ERANS. 

5 Section 307(d) of the Caregivers and Veterans Omni6 bus Health Services Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–163; 

7 38 U.S.C. 1710 note) is amended by striking ‘‘2020’’ and 

8 inserting ‘‘2021’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
### §776. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–28, §2(b)(2), July 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 245

Section, Pub. L. 93–275, §17, May 7, 1974, 88 Stat. 110, related to composition and manner of meeting of boards, task forces, commissions, committees, or similar groups not composed entirely of full-time Government employees, established or utilized by Administrator.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 756 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 756

  To modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of 
 certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial 
                                 names.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 12, 2019

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of 
 certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial 
                                 names.

    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 ``No Stolen Trademarks Honored in 
America Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF PROHIBITION.

    Section 211 of the Department of Commerce and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section 101(b) of division A 
of Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-88) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(2)--
                    (A) by striking ``by a designated national''; and
                    (B) by inserting before the period at the end the 
                following: ``that was used in connection with a 
                business or assets that were confiscated unless the 
                original owner of the mark, trade name, or commercial 
                name, or the bona fide successor-in-interest has 
                expressly consented'';
            (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``by a designated 
        national or its successor-in-interest'';
            (3) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e);
            (4) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
    ``(d) Subsections (a)(2) and (b) of this section shall apply only 
if the person or entity asserting the rights knew or had reason to know 
at the time when the person or entity acquired the rights asserted that 
the mark, trade name, or commercial name was the same as or 
substantially similar to a mark, trade name, or commercial name that 
was used in connection with a business or assets that were 
confiscated.''; and
            (5) in subsection (e), as so redesignated, by striking ``In 
        this section:'' and all that follows through ``(2) The term'' 
        and inserting ``In this section, the term''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 385.406 Data requests, interrogatories, and requests for production of documents or things (Rule 406). ( a ) *Availability.* Any participant may serve upon any other participant a written request to supply information, such as responses to data requests and interrogatories, or copies of documents.
( b ) *Procedures.* ( 1 ) A request under this section must identify with specificity the information or material sought and will specify a reasonable time within which the matter sought must be furnished.
( 2 ) Unless provided otherwise by the presiding officer, copies of any discovery request must be served upon the presiding officer and on all participants to the proceeding.
( 3 ) Each discovery request must be answered separately and fully in writing.
( 4 ) Responses to discovery requests are required to be served only on the participant requesting the information, Commission trial staff, and any other participant that specifically requests service. The presiding officer may direct that a copy of any responses be furnished to the presiding officer. Responses must be served within the time limit specified in the request or otherwise provided by the presiding officer.
( 5 ) If the matter sought is not furnished, the responding participant must provide, in accordance with Rule 410, written explanation of the specific grounds for the failure to furnish it.
#### § 1316.6 Discrimination on the basis of age.

When so indicated in TVA contract documents or actions, the following clause is included by reference in such documents or actions:

# Discrimination On The Basis Of Age

Executive Order 11141, 3 CFR, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 179, states that it is the policy of the Executive Branch of the United States that: Contractors and subcontractors engaged in the performance of Federal contracts shall not, in connection with the employment, advancement, or discharge of employees, or in connection with the terms, conditions, or privileges of their employment, discriminate against persons because of their age except upon the basis of a bona fide occupational qualification, retirement plan, or statutory requirement; and that contractors and subcontractors, or persons acting on their behalf, shall not specify, in solicitations or advertisements for employees to work on Government contracts, a maximum age limit for such employment unless the specified maximum age limit is based upon a bona fide occupational qualification, retirement plan, or statutory requirement.

(End of clause)
§ 1311.1 What is the purpose of these regulations? ( a ) The regulations in this part implement Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” issued July 14, 1982, and amended on April 8, 1983. These regulations also implement applicable provisions of section 401 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 and are intended to assist TVA in carrying out its responsibilities under the TVA Act.
( b ) These regulations are intended to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism by relying on state processes and on state, areawide, regional, and local coordination for review of proposed federal financial assistance and direct federal development.
( c ) These regulations are intended to aid the internal management of TVA, and are not intended to create any right or benefit enforceable at law by a party against TVA or its officers.
### §717x. Conserved natural gas

#### (a) Determination of entitlement

(1) For purposes of determining the natural gas entitlement of any local distribution company under any curtailment plan, if the Commission revises any base period established under such plan, the volumes of natural gas which such local distribution company demonstrates—

(A) were sold by the local distribution company, for a priority use immediately before the implementation of conservation measures, and

(B) were conserved by reason of the implementation of such conservation measures,

shall be treated by the Commission following such revision as continuing to be used for the priority use referred to in subparagraph (A).

(2) The Commission shall, by rule, prescribe methods for measurement of volumes of natural gas to which subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) apply.

#### (b) Conditions, limitations, etc.

Subsection (a) shall not limit or otherwise affect any provision of any curtailment plan, or any other provision of law or regulation, under which natural gas may be diverted or allocated to respond to emergency situations or to protect public health, safety, and welfare.

#### (c) Definitions

For purposes of this section—

(1) The term "conservation measures" means such energy conservation measures, as determined by the Commission, as were implemented after the base period established under the curtailment plan in effect on November 9, 1978.

(2) The term "local distribution company" means any person engaged in the transportation, or local distribution, of natural gas and the sale of natural gas for ultimate consumption.

(3) The term "curtailment plan" means a plan (including any modification of such plan required by the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 [15 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.] ) in effect under the Natural Gas Act [15 U.S.C. 717 et seq.] which provides for recognizing and implementing priorities of service during periods of curtailed deliveries.

(Pub. L. 95–617, title VI, §605, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3167.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, referred to in subsec. (c)(3), is Pub. L. 95–621, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3350, which is classified generally to chapter 60 (§3301 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3301 of this title and Tables.

The Natural Gas Act, referred to in subsec. (c)(3), is act June 21, 1938, ch. 556, 52 Stat. 821, which is classified generally to this chapter (§717 et seq.). For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 717w of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, and not as part of the Natural Gas Act which comprises this chapter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Definitions

For definitions of terms used in this section, see section 2602 of Title 16, Conservation.
EXHIBIT 11e


               HOMELAND HOLDING CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 Computation of Diluted Earnings Per Share

                  (In thousands, except per share amounts)



                                           Income       Shares       Per-Share
                                        (Numerator)  (Denominator)	   Amount

For the 12 weeks ended March 25, 2000:
Basic earnings per share
 Income available to common stockholders	 $    414	     4,919.4	      $ 0.08

Effect of dilutive securities:
  Stock options	                                 -         42.8

Diluted earnings per share
 Income available to common stockholders
  and assumed conversions 	               $    414	     4,962.2	     $ 0.08

For the 12 weeks ended March 27, 1999:
 Basic earnings per share
  Income available to common stockholders	$ (2,023)	     4906.5	     $(0.41)

Effect of dilutive securities:
 Stock options	                                  -	           -

Diluted earnings per share
 Income available to common stockholders
  and assumed conversions	                $ (2,023)	    4,906.5	     $(0.41)
### §671. Establishment; Associate Administrator; appointment and compensation

There is hereby established in the Small Business Administration a division to be known as the Small Business Investment Division. The Division shall be headed by an Associate Administrator who shall be appointed by the Administrator, and shall receive compensation at the rate provided by law for other Associate Administrators of the Small Business Administration.

(Pub. L. 85–699, title II, §201, Aug. 21, 1958, 72 Stat. 690; Pub. L. 89–117, title III, §316(b), Aug. 10, 1965, 79 Stat. 484; Pub. L. 89–779, §2, Nov. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 1359.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1966—Pub. L. 89–779 substituted "Associated Administrator" for "Deputy Administrator" as the head of the Small Business Investment Division of the Small Business Administration, substituted the rate provided by law for other Associate Administrators of the Small Business Administration for the rate provided by law for the other Deputy Administrators of the Small Business Administration as the standard of compensation for the head of the Small Business Investment Division, and struck out provisions spelling out the proper exercise of the powers conferred on the Administration and on the Administrator through the Small Business Investment Division and the Division head. See section 687(f) of this title.

1965—Pub. L. 89–117 provided that the powers conferred by subchapters IV–A and V of this chapter shall be exercised through such divisions, sections, or other personnel as the Administrator in his discretion determines.