alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1447a. Definitions

As used in this chapter, the term—

(1) "Board" means any Regional Marine Research board 1 established pursuant to section 1447b(a) of this title;

(2) "Federal agency" means any department, agency, or other instrumentality of the Federal Government, including any independent agency or establishment of the Federal Government and any government corporation;

(3) "local government" means any city, town, borough, county, parish, district, or other public body which is a political subdivision of a State and which is created pursuant to State law;

(4) "marine and coastal waters" means estuaries, waters of the estuarine zone, including wetlands, any other waters seaward of the historic height of tidal influence, the territorial seas, the contiguous zone, and the ocean;

(5) "nonprofit organization" means any organization, association, or institution described in section 501(c)(3) of title 26 which is exempt from taxation pursuant to section 501(a) of title 26;

(6) "region" means 1 of the 9 regions described in section 1447b(a) of this title; and

(7) "State" means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

(Pub. L. 92–532, title IV, §402, as added Pub. L. 101–593, title III, §301, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 2963.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone of United States

For extension of territorial sea and contiguous zone of United States, see Proc. No. 5928 and Proc. No. 7219, respectively, set out as notes under section 1331 of Title 43, Public Lands.

1 So in original. Probably should be capitalized.
Exhibit 13

Certification  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United
Sates Code), each of the undersigned officers of Grupo Industrial Maseca, S.A. de C.V. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The
Annual Report on form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Form 20-F") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

|Dated: June 30, 2005 | /s/ROBERTO GONZÁLEZ BARRERA                            
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|                     | Roberto González Barrera
Chief Executive Officer       
|Dated: June 30, 2005 | /s/JUAN ANTONIO QUIROGA GARCÍA                         
|                     | Juan Antonio Quiroga García
Senior Corporate Controller

A
signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-11198

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

GEORGE PASS, also known as Tennessee, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:14-CR-367-1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent George Pass 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). Pass

has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant 

portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 19, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-11198 Document: 00513724620 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2016
No. 15-11198

2

that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-11198 Document: 00513724620 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2016
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00326-CV

Andrea D. Smith

v.

Pallida, L.L.C., Successor in Interest
of Dodeka, L.L.C. and Frost Bank §

§

§

§ From the 43rd District Court

of Parker County (CV17-0117)

February 15, 2018

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth



### 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

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Just ice Bonnie Sudderth
Exhibit (99)(i)(a)

STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

The undersigned chief executive officer of Great Lakes Chemical Corporation hereby certifies that this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002
("Periodic Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that information contained in the Periodic Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Great Lakes Chemical Corporation.

| |  | /s/ Mark P. Bulriss
Mark P. Bulriss, Chief Executive Officer
Dated: March 10, 2003
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS RULINGS

Release No. 6901/April 7, 2023

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-20801

In the Matter of

:

DF GROWTH REIT II, LLC : ORDER

:

The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted this proceeding with an Order 

Temporarily Suspending Exemption Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Rule 

258 of Regulation A1 Thereunder and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing on March 16, 2022. 

Respondent DF Growth REIT II, LLC, requested a hearing, and, on March 31, 2022, the Commission 

ordered that the matter be heard by an Administrative Law Judge. On May 16, 2022, the proceeding

was reassigned to the undersigned. The proceeding is currently stayed, until May 22, 2023, pursuant to 

17 C.F.R. § 201.161(c)(2), pending Commission consideration of an Offer for Settlement. DF Growth 

REIT II, Admin. Proc. Rulings Release No. 6900, 2023 SEC LEXIS 771 (Mar. 23, 2023).

Under consideration is the Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief, filed on April 7, 

2023, by Markley S. Roderick. No action will be taken on the Motion and no dates will be set for 

filings by the parties or movant. See id. (staying all procedural dates).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/S/ Carol Fox Foelak 

Carol Fox Foelak

Administrative Law Judge

 

1 Regulation A consists of Securities Act Rules: 17 C.F.R. §§ 230.251-263 (Rules 251-263).
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed Septem ber 2 8 , 2023

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00779

- CV

JESSICA L. ADEBAYO , Appellant

V.
ADEFISAYO ADEBAYO , Appellee

On Appeal from the 246th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca u se No. 2021

- 67627

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appe al from a judgment signe d on A ugust 8, 2022. O n August 1 0
, 202 3 , w e struck appellant ’ s brief, informing h er t hat the brief failed to comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure b ecause the brief did not contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made with appropria te citations to authorities and to the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1 (i)
, 38.9. We ordered appellant to file a brief complying with Rul e 38.1 within 30 days of our August 10, 2 0 2 3 order and abated the appeal for a period of thirty days

.2

We informed appellant that if s he filed another noncompliant brief, the appeal could be d ismissed for want of prosecution. See id

. 38.8(a) (1)
, 38.9(a);
Harkins v. D ev er Nur sing Home , 999 S.W.2d 571, 572

- 73 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (reasoning that the court could dismiss the appeal or
affirm the trial court ’ s judgment without examining the record pursuant to Rule 38.8 since the appellant ’ s amende d brief did not contain a single citation to the record; choosing to affirm without examining the record); see also Rendleman v.
Clarke , 909 S.W.2d 56 , 59 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, writ dism’d) (error w aived when appellant had ample notice of b ri efing defects and opportunity to rebrief).
Appellant did not file a brief. When an appellant fails to file a brief, we may
dismiss h er appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)

. After being notified that this appeal was subject to di smissa l, appellant did not timely file
a brief or respond. Accordingly, we re instate the appeal on this court ’ s active
docket and dismiss the appeal. See id . 42.3, 43.2(f).

/s/ Meaga n Hassan J ustic e

Pan el co n s i sts of Ju stices Jewell, Hass an , and Wilson

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                          $2,613
<SECURITIES>                                        92
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,565
<ALLOWANCES>                                       113
<INVENTORY>                                      2,730
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,679
<PP&E>                                           6,231
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,462
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,065
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,718
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           762
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,513
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,065
<SALES>                                         16,631
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,631
<CGS>                                            5,095
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,199
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    15
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  14
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,124
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,349
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,775
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,775
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $3.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $3.75
        

</TABLE>
#### § 300.13 Waiver of filing requirements.

The Administrator must request waiver of any requirement of this subpart if an application that does not fully comply with that requirement is not to be considered deficient. The request must state the Administrator's reasons for such noncompliance and show good cause for any waiver.
§ 32.4 Terms; construction, severability; effect. ( a ) In determining the meaning of any provision of this part, unless the context should indicate otherwise, the first three provisions of 1 U.S.C. 1 (rules of construction) shall apply.
( b ) If benefits are denied to any individual pursuant to the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10282(a)(4), or otherwise because his actions were a substantial contributing factor to the death of the public safety officer, such individual shall be presumed irrebuttably, for all purposes, not to have survived the officer.
( c ) Any provision of this part held to be invalid or unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any person or circumstance, shall be construed so as to give it the maximum effect permitted by law, unless such holding shall be one of utter invalidity or unenforceability, in which event such provision shall be deemed severable herefrom and shall not affect the remainder hereof or the application of such provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other, dissimilar circumstances.
( d ) Unless the same should expressly provide otherwise (e.g., by use of the word “hereafter” in an appropriations proviso), any amendment to the Act (or any statutory enactment otherwise directly referent or -applicable to the program that is the subject of this part), shall apply only with respect to injuries (or, in connection with claims under the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10281(k), shall apply only with respect to heart attacks, strokes, or vascular ruptures referred to in the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10281(k)(2)) occurring on or after the date it takes effect.
( e ) Unless expressly provided otherwise, any reference in this part to any provision of law not in this part shall be understood to constitute a general reference under the doctrine of incorporation by reference, and thus to include any subsequent amendments to the provision.
[73 FR 76531, Dec. 17, 2008, as amended at 83 FR 22382, May 15, 2018]
§ 115.188 Data review for corrective action. ( a ) The agency shall review data collected and aggregated pursuant to § 115.187 in order to assess and improve the effectiveness of its sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies, practices, and training, including: ( 1 ) Identifying problem areas;
( 2 ) Taking corrective action on an ongoing basis; and
( 3 ) Preparing an annual report of its findings and corrective actions for each lockup, as well as the agency as a whole.
( b ) Such report shall include a comparison of the current year's data and corrective actions with those from prior years and shall provide an assessment of the agency's progress in addressing sexual abuse.
( c ) The agency's report shall be approved by the agency head and made readily available to the public through its Web site or, if it does not have one, through other means.
( d ) The agency may redact specific material from the reports when publication would present a clear and specific threat to the safety and security of a lockup, but must indicate the nature of the material redacted.
Chris, 

Thanks for the clarification, it helped. However, we do have a few comments on 

the presentation you attached, as follows: 

1 – We believe that another draft Trial Standard Level (dTSL7) should be added 

to the analysis that would be defined as: 

TSL7 – Shortest Payback 

 

 EC1 EC2 

 DL1 DL2 DL3 DL4 DL5 

TSL7 EL2 EL1 EL2 EL2 EL1 

2 – We are confused and believe we need better definition on TSL4, which is 

defined as Materials Constraint. It appears to us that the planned Efficiency 

Levels chosen do not provide for use of domestically available materials, esp. 

domestic core steels. From our look at the competitiveness of the designs at 

each Efficiency Level, the ELs chosen are too high. But we would like this better 

explained. We feel the EL should be derived from the point where amorphous 

can compete economically with M3, and vise versa. BTW – this may not be at an 

existing EL, it might be between existing Efficiency Levels. 

3 – We would like to see the National Impact Results for MV Liquid Immersed, by 

Efficiency Level be shown as combined, rather than by each Equipment Class 

(EC1 and EC2). This would provide a better look at what energy savings are 

derived and costs incurred for the entire MV Liquid Immersed products. This 

would look as follows: 

 Summary Results for MV Liquid Immersed 

 

 Base 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Equip 

Cost ($B) 

64.84 -5.3 -11.64 -13.65 -14.96 -22.96 -36-86 -43.04 

Operating 

Savings 

($B) 

77.2 10.7 17.87 20.64 24.0 30.21 36.75 38.87 

Cumm 

Source 

Savings 

(Quads) 

 .74 1.21 1.38 1.58 1.96 2.35 2.49 

NPV 

@3%($B)

 5.38 6.23 7.0 9.04 7.26 -.11 -4.16 

 
Let me know if you have comments or questions. 

Greg Coulter
LEASE ADDENDUM

This  amendment  supplements  and amends the  provisions of the Lease  Agreement
dated August 21, 1998, by and between TARGUN  PROPERTIES,  INC.  ("Lessor") and,
National  Scientific  Corporation  ("Lessee").  In the event of any  conflict or
inconsistency between the provisions of this Amendment and the provisions of the
Lease, this Amendment shall prevail.

                            18 MONTH LEASE EXTENSION
                              Offices #21, #23, #24


______ initials                                                  ______ initials

Effective Date:     September 1, 1999 to February 28, 2001

Rent Rate:          $2,300.00
Sales Tax:          $   43.70
                    ---------
Total               $2,342.70


Terms and  conditions:  Except  to the  extent  inconsistent  with the terms and
conditions  set forth  above,  all the  conditions  and covenant of that certain
Lease  Agreement  dated AUGUST 21,  1998,  as well as all  exhibits,  schedules,
attachments,  addendums  of  clarifications  shall be  binding  upon  Lessor and
Lessee. This agreement shall not constitute an agreement by the Lessor and shall
not be binding upon Lessor unless and until the  Agreement  shall be executed by
both parties.

AGREED TO this 27 day of July, 1999.

LESSEE:                                 LESSOR:
NATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION         TARGUN PROPERTIES, INC.


/s/ Vernon Traylor Jr.                  /s/ Michael Targun
-----------------------------------     -----------------------------------
                                        Michael Targun

Its: Agent                              Its: President
-----------------------------------     -----------------------------------
FROM: THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF YELLOWSTONE,

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. CHRIS R. MAHONEY, Defendant.

NO. DC-89-256 DECISION

DATED this 8th day of March, 1990.

On November 22, 1989, the Defendant was sentenced to Count I, Attempted Deliberate Homicide, forty (40) years Plus eight (8) years for the use of a weapon to run consecutive; Count II, Attempted Sexual Intercourse without Consent, eighteen (18) years, Counts I and II shall run consecutively; plus 177 days credit for time served; and the defendant must complete the sex offender program at Montana State Prison; and the defendant shall not live within 500 miles of the victim. He shall be designated a dangerous offender for purposes of parole.

On March 8, 1990, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and was represented by Thomas J. Schmitt, of the Montana Defender Project. The state was represented by Brent Brooks, Deputy County Attorney from Yellowstone County.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it if such is possible. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the judgment imposed by the District Court is affirmed.

The reason for the decision is based upon Sentence Review Rule 17. That the sentence is presumed correct.
#### J. Schnyder A. G., a Corporation, Respondent, v. Draeger Shipping Co., Inc., et al., Defendants, and Frederick Draeger, Defendant-Appellant.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 11/21/14

FROM: Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Discussion of the Clean Power Plan at a Symposium on the EPA’s Proposed rules on 

Carbon Reduction organized by the Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA)

SUMMARY: 

Region 4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan to participants at a Symposium on the 

EPA’s Proposed rules on Carbon Reduction organized by the Jacksonville Electric Authority in 

Jacksonville, FL, on September 25, 2014. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was 

proposed on June 2, 2014. 

ATTENDEES:

EPA

Ken Mitchell/EPA R4

External Stakeholders

Michael Hightower/JEA Board of Directors

Paul McElroy/JEA

Jeff Holmstead/Bracewell and Giuliani

Theresa Pugh/APPA

Approximately 50 other attendees

ATTACHMENT
Stewart Gregg, 2nd VP & Senior Counsel
Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America
5701 Golden Hills Drive
Minneapolis, MN  55416
(763) 765-2913

April 26, 2004

Board of Directors

Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America
5701 Golden Hills Drive
Minneapolis, MN  55416

Re:     Opinion and Consent of Counsel
        Allianz Life Variable Account B

Dear Sir or Madam:

You have requested my Opinion of Counsel in connection  with the filing with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended,  of  Post-Effective  Amendment No. 12 to the Registration  Statement on
Form N-4 for the Individual  Deferred Variable Annuity Contracts to be issued by
Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America and its separate account,Allianz
Life Variable Account B File No. 333-95729.

I am of the following opinions:

1.   Allianz Life Variable  Account B is a unit investment trust as that term is
     defined in Section  4(2) of the  Investment  Company Act of 1940 (the Act),
     and is currently  registered  with the Securities and Exchange  Commission,
     pursuant to Section 8(a) of the Act.

2.   Upon the acceptance of purchase  payments made by a Contract Owner pursuant
     to a Contract  issued in accordance  with the  Prospectus  contained in the
     Registration  Statement and upon  compliance  with  applicable  law, such a
     Contract  Owner  will  have a  legally-issued,  fully-paid,  non-assessable
     contractual interest under such Contract.

You  may  use  this  opinion  letter,  or  copy  hereof,  as an  exhibit  to the
Registration Statement.

I consent to the  reference to me and to this opinion  under the caption  "Legal
Opinions"  contained in the  Statements of Additional  Information  which form a
part of the Registration Statement.

Sincerely,

ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA

By: /s/ Stewart Gregg

    ------------------------------
        Stewart Gregg