alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 

INFORMATION SHEET BY COURT REPORTERS 

You are expected to file the reporter’s record by the original due date. See Tex. R. App. P.35. If 

a reporter determines that the due date may not be met, please advise the Clerk of the Court of 

Appeals immediately in writing, stating the reason and the due date by which the record will be 

filed. Generally speaking, for good cause shown, the Court will grant no more than two 

extensions from the original record due date, each extension not to exceed 30 days in regular 

appeals and 10 days in accelerated appeals for a total period not to exceed 60 days in regular 

appeals and 20 days in accelerated appeals.

 

Appellate Case Number: Trial Court Case Number: 

(1) Is there a Reporter's Record? Y N

(2) Are you the only court reporter involved in this appeal? Y N

If not, please provide the names and addresses of all other court

reporters below.

(3) Has the appellant requested that the reporter’s record be prepared or 

has the trial court ordered that the record be prepared?

 Y N

(4) Please select from the following options:

 A. The appellant has paid for the record.

 B. The appellant has made arrangements to pay for the record

 C. The appellant is appealing as indigent.

 D. The appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay for the

 record and is not appealing as indigent.

(5) Extension (fill out if extension is required for any reason other than payment)

I was unable to file the record in this appeal by ________. I expect the record 

in this appeal to be approximately _______ pages. The record covers 

_______days of testimony. I believe that I can file the record by _________. I 

ask that the court grant an extension until that time for filing the record.

Additional Comments: ___________________________________________

Court Reporter's Signature, Full Address, Email Address and Telephone Number: 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 1/13/2015 5:14:50 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
#### Benjamin A. Hartstein, Respondent, v. Isaac S. Heller, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 22

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


Name                                                      State of Incorporation

ART Holdings Corporation
f/k/a Acumenics Research & Technology, Inc.               Maryland

Advanced Biosystems, Inc.                                 Delaware

Aerospace Sciences, Inc.                                  Virginia

Avenue Technologies, Inc.                                 Virginia

Engineering and Information Services, Inc.                Virginia

Performance Engineering Network, Inc.                     Delaware

SyCom Services, Inc.                                      Delaware

Vail Research and Technology Corporation                  Maryland

Hadron - CPD, Inc. (inactive)                             Virginia

P.E.N. Acquisition Corporation (inactive)                 Virginia

Telcom International, Inc. (inactive)                     Delaware

Applied Graphics Corporation (inactive)                   Maryland

Compulaser, Inc. (inactive)                               Delaware

Digitcom, Inc. (inactive)                                 Ohio

G.E. Boggs and Associates, Inc. (inactive)                Maryland
§ 54.435 Employment assistance to students. ( a ) *Assistance by recipient in making available outside employment.* A recipient that assists any agency, organization, or person in making employment available to any of its students: ( 1 ) Shall assure itself that such employment is made available without discrimination on the basis of sex; and
( 2 ) Shall not render such services to any agency, organization, or person that discriminates on the basis of sex in its employment practices.
( b ) *Employment of students by recipients.* A recipient that employs any of its students shall not do so in a manner that violates §§ 54.500 through 54.550.
#### § 545.31 Training.

The Warden shall ensure that staff receive training on their roles in, and on the operation of, the work and performance pay program. The Warden shall also ensure that the inmate population is informed of the work and performance pay program, and of the hourly rates paid to inmate workers.

[49 FR 38915, Oct. 1, 1984. Redesignated at 56 FR 23479, May 21, 1991]
CS 317798-A 06/27/2020

cdc.gov/coronavirus

DAILY CHECKLIST FOR MANAGERS

OF RESTAURANTS AND BARS 

Urge employees to stay home if they feel unwell, tested 

positive for COVID-19, or were exposed to someone with 

COVID-19 within the last 14 days.

Require employees to frequently wash their hands with 

soap and water for at least 20 seconds, especially before, 

during, and after preparing food and after touching garbage.

Develop a schedule for increased routine cleaning and 

disinfection of frequently touched surfaces, such as door 

handles, bathrooms, cash registers, tables, countertops, receipt 

trays, and condiment holders.

Encourage the use of cloth face coverings among all staff, as 

feasible. This is most essential when staying at least 6 feet apart 

is difficult.

Make sure there are enough supplies to support healthy 

hygiene, such as soap, paper towels, disinfectant wipes, 

tissues, hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol, and no-touch 

trash cans in key areas of the restaurant including near the cash 

registers and in the restrooms.

Prioritize outdoor seating and open windows and doors to 

increase circulation of outdoor air if possible.

Change layouts, such as spacing out tables and chairs, to 

make sure customer parties remain at least 6 feet apart. 

6 feet
### §391d. Change in name of part of Hawaii National Park

Effective September 22, 1961, the portion of the Hawaii National Park situated on the island of Hawaii, established and administered pursuant to sections 391, 393, and 394 of this title, as amended and supplemented, shall be known as the Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park.

(Pub. L. 87–278, Sept. 22, 1961, 75 Stat. 577; Pub. L. 106–510, §3(a)(1), Nov. 13, 2000, 114 Stat. 2363.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2000—Pub. L. 106–510 substituted "Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park" for "Hawaii Volcanoes National Park".

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

#### Change of Name

Pub. L. 106–510, §3(a)(2), Nov. 13, 2000, 114 Stat. 2363, provided that: "Any reference in any law (other than this Act [see Tables for classification]), regulation, document, record, map, or other paper of the United States to 'Hawaii Volcanoes National Park' shall be considered a reference to 'Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park'."
# C_2014009EN.01000301.xml

| 11.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by K

(Case C-322/11) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Tax legislation of a Member State which does not allow deduction of the loss on the sale of immovable property situated in another Member State from the gain on the sale of securities in the Member State of taxation)

2014/C 9/03

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

K

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Articles 63 and 65 TFEU — Free movement of capital — National tax legislation not allowing a person with full liability to tax to deduct the loss on the sale of immovable property situated in another Member State from the gain on the transfer of securities in the Member State of taxation

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU do not preclude national tax legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not allow a taxpayer who resides in the Member State concerned and is fully liable to income tax there to deduct the losses arising on the transfer of immovable property situated in another Member State from the income from moveable assets which is taxable in the first Member State, although that would have been possible, on certain conditions, if the immovable property had been situated in the first Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.

1

---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS

Appellate case name: In re Kimberly Marks

Appellate case number: 01-15-00087-CV

Trial court case number: 2013-73339

Trial court: 310th Judicial District Court of Harris County

On January 29, 2015, this Court, among other things, requested a response by the 

real party in interest to the petition for a writ of mandamus. The petition by relator, 

Kimberly Marks, challenged the trial court’s January 26, 2015 order requiring her to 

participate in regular drug testing in the underlying suit affecting the parent-child 

relationship. On March 2, 2015, the real party in interest, the Department of Family and 

Protective Services (“DFPS”), filed a supplemental mandamus record. The record 

included, among other things, the DFPS’ Motion for Nonsuit, because DFPS did not 

desire to pursue this cause of action, which the trial court granted on February 17, 2015.

Based on the documents in the DFPS’ record, it appears that this Court may no 

longer have jurisdiction over this original proceeding because there is no longer a live 

trial court proceeding. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hallman, 159 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Tex. 

2005); see also Tex. A&M Univ.–Kingsville v. Yarbrough, 347 S.W.3d 289, 290–91 (Tex. 

2011). Accordingly, the Court may dismiss this petition for want of jurisdiction unless 

the relator files a written response, citing relevant portions of the record, statutes, rules, 

and case law, showing that this Court has jurisdiction. See Yarbrough, 347 S.W.3d at 

291; cf. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). The response, if any, shall be filed within 14 days from 

the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

  Acting individually 

Date: March 5, 2015
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
Section 302 Certification
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A
for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2009 of The Great Atlantic &
Pacific Tea Company, Inc. (Amendment No. 1); and2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, Amendment No. 1 does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report.
  /s/ Brenda M. GalganoBrenda M. GalganoSenior Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer
#### § 367.2040 Account 204, Preferred stock issued.

This account must include the par or stated value of all preferred stock issued and outstanding.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 27 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 27

Providing for the use of the catafalque situated in the Exhibition Hall 
 of the Capitol Visitor Center in connection with memorial services to 
be conducted in the House wing of the Capitol for the Honorable Elijah 
     E. Cummings, late a Representative from the State of Maryland.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 21, 2019

   Mr. Blunt (for himself and Ms. Klobuchar) submitted the following 
       concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for the use of the catafalque situated in the Exhibition Hall 
 of the Capitol Visitor Center in connection with memorial services to 
be conducted in the House wing of the Capitol for the Honorable Elijah 
     E. Cummings, late a Representative from the State of Maryland.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Architect of the Capitol is authorized and directed to 
transfer the catafalque which is situated in the Exhibition Hall of the 
Capitol Visitor Center to the House wing of the Capitol so that such 
catafalque may be used in connection with services to be conducted 
there for the Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, late a Representative from 
the State of Maryland.
                                 <all>
```
§ 549.90 Purpose and application. ( a ) This subpart provides definitions and standards for review of persons for certification to federal district courts as sexually dangerous persons, as authorized by title 18 U.S.C. Chapter 313, by Bureau of Prisons staff or contractors (collectively referred to in this Part as “the Bureau”).
( b ) This subpart applies to persons in Bureau custody, including those: ( 1 ) Under a term of imprisonment;
( 2 ) For whom all criminal charges have been dismissed solely for reasons relating to the person's mental condition; or
( 3 ) In Bureau custody pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4241(d).
( c ) The Bureau may certify that a person in Bureau custody is a sexually dangerous person when review under this subpart provides reasonable cause to believe that the person is a sexually dangerous person. In determining whether a person is a sexually dangerous person and should be so certified, the Bureau will consider any available information in its possession and may transfer the person to a suitable facility for psychological examination in order to obtain information for this purpose.
# A--LA ..94 ■ 

# 4 1 , C.J. Hardesty Gibbons (2008) (explaining the distinction between good cause and excusable neglect). Accordingly, finding no abuse of discretion, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Saitta
cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge Michael H. Singer, Settlement Judge Pengilly Law Firm

• Robison Belaustegui Sharp & Low Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A ern
#### Christopher M., an Infant, by His Parent and Natural Guardian, Sonia Suarez, Appellant, v Richard L. Pyle, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[823 NYS2d 750]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Christopher J. Burns, J.), entered April 11, 2006 in a personal injury action. The order, among other things, denied plaintiffs motion to quash a subpoena.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present—Scudder, J.E, Martoche, Centra and Pine, JJ.
### f u m i gan t a l t

e r na t i ves ana l ys is R and y S ega w

a to: Nan cy

Le v i n, A nd r

ew S te ck el 08 / 03/ 2011 03 : 18

PM C c: K a r en M ag li ano , P a tri c i a V e l a sco , S y l v i a Zu l a w n i ck , J ohn S ande rs , P o ll y F r en k e l, K e rr

y Dr a ke Fo ll o w U p: N o rm a l Pri o rit y . Hi s t o r y: Th i s m e ss age ha s been f o rw a r ded. 

### 4 atta c hments 2332 - St e ck e l. pdf Fu m i gan t V O C Alt e rna ti v e sA na l ys i s
_ 2 . pdf Fu m i gan t V O C Alt

e rna ti v e sA na l ys i s
_ 2

_ trk

_ c hng . pdf a tt a c h m en t

_ 1b . pdf 

### Andy, Nancy The revised alternatives analysis for the Department of Pesticide Regulation's (DPR's) fumigant volatile organic compound (VOC) regulations is attached. The previous analysis addressed the first three sets of fumigant VOC regulations. This revision includes the alternatives analysis for all five sets of pesticide VOC regulations. Both a clean version and a track changes version are attached. The analysis includes a new attachment, Attachment 1b. Attachment 1 in the previous alternatives analysis now becomes Attachment 1a. There are no changes from the preview of these documents I sent last week. Hardcopy is in the mail. DPR sent the last two sets of VOC regulations to the Air Resources Board on July 20. They should submit these regulations to you shortly. Contact me if you have any questions, but I will be out of the office tomorrow and Friday. Randy Randy Segawa Environmental Program Manager Air Program Department of Pesticide Regulation PO Box 4015 Sacramento, CA 95812-4015 916-324-4137 rsegawa@cdpr.ca.gov
### §§1091 to 1094. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–265, title IV, §402(a), Apr. 13, 1976, 90 Stat. 360

Sections, Pub. L. 89–658, §§1–4, Oct. 14, 1966, 80 Stat. 908, set out provisions authorizing the establishment of a fishery zone contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States. See section 1801 et seq. of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 94–265, title IV, §402(a), Apr. 13, 1976, 90 Stat. 360, provided that repeal of sections 1091 to 1094 of this title is effective Mar. 1, 1977.
`EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Elecsys Corporation (the"Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended April 30, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and as of the date indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge;

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

     2)   The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Date:  July 16, 2007                    /s/ Karl B. Gemperli
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Karl B. Gemperli
                                       President, Chief Executive
                                       Officer (Principal Executive Officer)


[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to and will be retained by Elecsys Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]`
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20

- 2174

_____________________________ C.R., t he c aregiver
,
Petitioner
,

v.

D EPARTMENT OF C HILDREN AND F AMILIES , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

— Original Jurisdiction

.

September 30, 2020

P ER C URIAM

.
The Court sua sponte accepts the amended petition for writ of certiorari filed August 7, 2020. The amended petition is dismissed as untimely. See Fla. R. App. P . 9.100(c).

L EWIS , N ORDBY , and L ONG , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until dispositi on of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Jill W. Warren, Pensacola
, for Petitioner

. Sarah J. Rumph, Appellate Counsel, Children’s Legal Services, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
SCPW-14-0001380
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

JAMES J. NAVAJA, Petitioner,

vs. STEPHEN JOST, Director; CHRIS ATHERALL; JOHN AND JANE DOES, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CAAP-14-0001164; CIV. NO. 14-1-1439-06)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION (By: Reck tenwald, C.J., Nak ayama, Mc Kenna, Po llack, an d Wilson, J.J.)

Upon consideration of Petitioner James J. Navaja’s petition for writ of prohibition, filed on December 22, 2014, and the record, it appears that Petitioner’s appeal is pending before the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”). If the appeal is dismissed for nonpayment of the filing fee or if the ICA enters judgment on the final disposition of the appeal, Petitioner may seek relief pursuant to HRAP Rule 40.1. A writ of prohibition is therefore not warranted under the specific facts and circumstances of this matter. See Honolulu Adv., Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of prohibition “is an extraordinary remedy . . . to restrain a judge of an Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-14-0001380 13-JAN-2015 09:51 AMinferior court from acting beyond or in excess of his

jurisdiction”). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appellate clerks’ office shall process the petition for writ of prohibition without payment of the filing fee.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of prohibition is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, January 13, 2015. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 831 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue final rules relating to 

listing the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes and Wyoming under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 14, 2019 

Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. BARRASSO, and Mr. ENZI) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue final rules 

relating to listing the gray wolf in the Western Great 

Lakes and Wyoming under the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REISSUANCE OF FINAL RULE REGARDING 

4 GRAY WOLVES IN WESTERN GREAT LAKES. 

5 Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the 

6 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 

7 shall reissue the final rule published on December 28, 

8 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 81666), without regard to any other 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 831 IS

1 provision of statute or regulation that applies to issuance 

2 of such rule. Such reissuance shall not be subject to judi3 cial review. 

4 SEC. 2. REISSUANCE OF FINAL RULE REGARDING GRAY 

5 WOLVES IN WYOMING. 

6 The final rule published on September 10, 2012 (77 

7 Fed. Reg. 55530), that was reinstated on March 3, 2017, 

8 by the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Dis9 trict of Columbia (No. 14–5300) and further republished 

10 on May 1, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 20284–85), that reinstates 

11 the removal of Federal protections for the gray wolf in 

12 Wyoming under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

13 amended, shall not be subject to judicial review. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
§ 367.1420 Account 142, Customer accounts receivable. ( a ) This account must include amounts due from customers for service, and for merchandising, jobbing and contract work. This account must not include amounts due from associate companies.
( b ) This account must be maintained so as to permit ready segregation of the amounts due for merchandising, jobbing and contract work.