alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §3267. Definitions

As used in this chapter:

(1) The term "employed by the Armed Forces outside the United States" means—

(A) employed as—

(i) a civilian employee of—

(I) the Department of Defense (including a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the Department); or

(II) any other Federal agency, or any provisional authority, to the extent such employment relates to supporting the mission of the Department of Defense overseas;

(ii) a contractor (including a subcontractor at any tier) of—

(I) the Department of Defense (including a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the Department); or

(II) any other Federal agency, or any provisional authority, to the extent such employment relates to supporting the mission of the Department of Defense overseas; or

(iii) an employee of a contractor (or subcontractor at any tier) of—

(I) the Department of Defense (including a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the Department); or

(II) any other Federal agency, or any provisional authority, to the extent such employment relates to supporting the mission of the Department of Defense overseas;

(B) present or residing outside the United States in connection with such employment; and

(C) not a national of or ordinarily resident in the host nation.

(2) The term "accompanying the Armed Forces outside the United States" means—

(A) a dependent of—

(i) a member of the Armed Forces;

(ii) a civilian employee of the Department of Defense (including a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the Department); or

(iii) a Department of Defense contractor (including a subcontractor at any tier) or an employee of a Department of Defense contractor (including a subcontractor at any tier);

(B) residing with such member, civilian employee, contractor, or contractor employee outside the United States; and

(C) not a national of or ordinarily resident in the host nation.

(3) The term "Armed Forces" has the meaning given the term "armed forces" in section 101(a)(4) of title 10.

(4) The terms "Judge Advocate General" and "judge advocate" have the meanings given such terms in section 801 of title 10.

(Added Pub. L. 106–523, §2(a), Nov. 22, 2000, 114 Stat. 2491; amended Pub. L. 108–375, div. A, title X, §1088, Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 2066.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Par. (1)(A). Pub. L. 108–375 amended subpar. (A) generally. Prior to amendment, subpar. (A) read as follows: "employed as a civilian employee of the Department of Defense (including a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the Department), as a Department of Defense contractor (including a subcontractor at any tier), or as an employee of a Department of Defense contractor (including a subcontractor at any tier);".
### §4907. Moratoria for species not covered by Convention

#### (a) In general

The Secretary shall—

(1) review periodically the trade in species of exotic birds that are not listed in any Appendix to the Convention; and

(2) after notice and an opportunity for public comment, establish a moratorium or quota on—

(A) importation of any species of exotic birds from one or more countries of origin for the species, if the Secretary determines that—

(i) the findings described in section 4905(c)(2), (3), and (4) of this title cannot be made with respect to the species; and

(ii) the moratorium or quota is necessary for the conservation of the species or is otherwise consistent with the purpose of this chapter; or

(B) the importation of all species of exotic birds from a particular country, if—

(i) the country has not developed and implemented a management program for exotic birds in trade generally, that ensures both the conservation and the humane treatment of exotic birds during capture, transport, and maintenance; and

(ii) the Secretary finds that the moratorium or quota is necessary for the conservation of the species or is otherwise consistent with the purpose of this chapter.

#### (b) Termination of quota or moratorium

The Secretary shall terminate a quota or moratorium established under subsection (a) if the Secretary finds that the reasons for establishing the quota or moratorium no longer exist.

(Pub. L. 102–440, title I, §108, Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2229.)
388 P.2d 80

#### STATE of New Mexico ex rel. the TOWN OF ATRISCO and the Board of Trustees of the Town of Atrisco, Relators, v. The Honorable Edwin L. SWOPE, John B. McManus, Jr., Robert W. Reidy, Paul Tackett, D. A. Macpherson, Jr., and Paul F. Larrazolo, District Judges of the Second Judicial District, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico, and the District Court of Said *Second*Judicial District of New Mexico, Respondents.

No. 7543.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Jan. 17, 1964.

COMPTON, Chief Justice, and CARMODY, CHAVEZ and NOBLE, Justices, concurring, MOISE, Justice, being absent, not participating.

Ordered that the Application for Writ of Prohibition filed herein be and the same is hereby denied.
#### §§ 300.521-300.529 [Reserved]
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 2017 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: February 1, 2017

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

TOTAL 0

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
#### § 106.72 Severability.

If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person, act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the subpart or the application of its provisions to any person, act, or practice shall not be affected thereby.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 14

- 00036

- CV
IN THE INTERE ST OF A.M.E. From the 224th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2009

- PA

- 00043 Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe , Judge Presiding
PER CUR IAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: April 2, 2014
DISMISSED The trial court signed a final judgment on July 10, 2013. On January 14, 2014, appellant filed a notice of restricted appeal. A notice of restricted appeal must be filed within six months after the judgment is signed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1(c). Therefore , the notice of appeal was due to be filed on January 10, 2014, four days before appellant filed his notice of appeal. A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on January 27, 2014. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.3. Although appellant fil ed a notice of appeal within the fifteen

- day grace period allowed by Rule 26.3, he did not file a motion for extension of time. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 but within the fifteen

- day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of04

- 14

- 00036

- CV

time. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. See id. ; T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C). Therefore, on February 24, 2014, we ordered appellant to file, within fifteen days , a response presenting a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely

manner. We explained that i f appellant fail ed to respond within the time provided, the appeal

w ould be dismissed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(c). Appellant f ailed to respond. We therefore dismiss this appeal.

PER CURIAM

- 2

-
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB ofVisualMED Clinical Solutions(the Company) for the
quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Larry Kurlender, Principal Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(2) The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Larry KurlenderLarry KurlenderPrincipal Financial Officer, PrincipalAccounting Officer and TreasurerNovember14th, 2007

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78r), as amended.

(The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements)

---
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

17 CFR Part 275 

[Release No. IA-2965A; File No. S7-23-07] 

RIN 3235-AJ96 

Temporary Rule Regarding Principal Trades with Certain Advisory Clients 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: On December 30, 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission published a 

Federal Register document adopting as final Rule 206(3)-3T under the Investment Advisers Act 

of 1940, the interim final temporary rule that establishes an alternative means for investment 

advisers who are registered with the Commission as broker-dealers to meet the requirements of 

Section 206(3) of the Investment Advisers Act when they act in a principal capacity in 

transactions with certain of their advisory clients. As adopted, the only change to the rule was 

the expiration date. Rule 206(3)-3T will sunset on December 31, 2010. This document makes a 

correction to that document. 

DATES: Effective December 31, 2009. The DATES section for FR Doc. 2009-30877, 

published on December 30, 2009 (74 FR 69009) is corrected to read “DATES: The amendments 

in this document are effective December 30, 2009 and the expiration date for 17 CFR 

275.206(3)-3T is extended to December 31, 2010”. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah A. Bessin, Assistant Director, Daniel 

S. Kahl, Branch Chief, or Matthew N. Goldin, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6787 or 

IArules@sec.gov, Office of Investment Adviser Regulation, Division of Investment 
 

 

Management, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549-

5041. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Securities and Exchange Commission is correcting the DATES section for FR Doc. 2009-

30877, published on December 30, 2009 (74 FR 69009), to read “DATES: The amendments in 

this document are effective December 20, 2009 and the expiration date for 17 CFR 275.206(3)-

3T is extended to December 31, 2010.” 

By the Commission. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy 

Secretary 

December 31, 2009
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Clancy Systems International,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended Sept. 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Stanley J. Wolfson, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully 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 respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

/s/   Stanley J. Wolfson
_______________________
Chief Executive Officer
January 12, 2004



<PAGE>
(No. 00131

#### In Re Application of Paula Marsek

*Opinion filed May 4, 1978*

Walter Wlodek, Attorney for Claimant.

William J. Scott, Attorney General for Illinois; Vincent J. Biskupic, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

This claim, arising out of the death of a fireman, allegedly killed in the line of duty, seeks payment of compensation to the decedent’s beneficiaries pursuant to the provisions of the “Law Enforcement Officers and Firemen Compensation Act,” (hereafter, the Act,) Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 48, Sec. 281 *et seq.,*1975.

The Court has carefully considered the application *384for benefits submitted on the form prescribed and furnished by the Attorney General; a written statement of the decedent’s supervising officer; and a report by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office which substantiates matters set forth in the application. Based upon these documents and other evidence submitted at a hearing on April 19, 1978, the Court finds that:

1. The Claimant, Paula Marsek, is the widow of the decedent, and, in the absence of a designation of beneficiary, is the person entitled to receive benefits pursuant to the Act.

2. The decedent, Wallace J. Marsek, age 61, was a full-time fireman, a member of the Westchester Fire Department, and engaged in the active performance of his duties, within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act, on January 3, 1977.

3. On said date, at approximately 5:49 p.m., during regularly assigned duty hours, firefighter Marsek fell, striking his head on a concrete floor while removing snow from, and washing, a fire department truck in the Westchester Fire station. Immediately prior thereto, Marsek had driven the truck to, and assisted in, a rescue call; he drove the truck back into the fire station prior to commencing washing it. The certificate of death presented recited the immediate cause of death as “arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” and the evidence presented indicates that fireman Marsek’s death was caused and precipitated by the active performance required of him as a member of the Westchester Fire Department.

4. Firefighter Marsek was killed in the line of duty as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act.

5. The proof submitted in support of this claim satisfies all of the requirements of the Act and the *385claim is therefore compensable thereunder;

It is hereby ordered that the sum of $20,000.00 be awarded to Paula Marsek, as widow of the deceased fireman, Wallace J. Marsek.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN, INC



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*



In connection with the Annual Report of California Pizza Kitchen, Inc (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard L. Rosenfield, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The
Report fully 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 respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



March 14, 2007



By:

/s/    RICHARD L.
ROSENFIELDRichard L. Rosenfield Co-Chief Executive Officer






---

|* |  | This certificate accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
|- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 10.12



SECOND AMENDED RESTRICTED STOCK GRANT AGREEMENT



THIS SECOND AMENDED RESTRICTED STOCK GRANT AGREEMENT (the Second Amended Agreement) is made as of this 12 day of July 2005, between RASER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (Company) and JOHN RITTER, (Employee).



RECITALS



WHEREAS, Company and
Employee entered into a certain Restricted Stock Grant Agreement on February 23, 2004 (the Agreement), and an Amended Stock Grant Agreement on April 29, 2005 (the Amended Agreement) and the parties now desire to
mutually amend the Amended Agreement as set forth below;



WHEREAS, the Amended Agreement provides that shares to be issued on May 1, 2005 set forth in the Agreement be deferred until July 14, 2005; and



WHEREAS, Employee desires to further delay the July 14, 2005 issuance to July 29, 2005;



NOW, THEREFORE, in view of the foregoing recitals which are incorporated as a
part of this Amended Agreement, and in consideration of the terms and conditions of this Amended Agreement, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:



| | 1. | Paragraph 2 of the Amended Agreement is amended to delay vesting of 62,500 shares from July 14, 2005 until August 1, 2005.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | All other provisions of the Agreement and Amended Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. To the extent any provisions of the Agreement or Amended Agreement conflict with
the provisions of this Second Amended Agreement, this Second Amended Agreement shall govern.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Company and Employee have executed this Second Amended Agreement effective as of the date first set forth above.



|                         |  |                         |  |           |  |             |  |                   
|------------------------ |  | ----------------------- |  | --------- |  | ----------- |  | ------------------
|COMPANY:                 |  |                         |  | EMPLOYEE:
|                         |  |                        
|RASER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. |  |                         |  |          
|                         |  |                         |  |          
|By                       |  | /s/ Brent M. Cook       |  |           |  | By          |  | /s/ John C. Ritter
|                         |  |                         | 
|Its:                     |  | Chief Executive Officer |  |           |  | John Ritter
Exhibit 31
CERTIFICATION

I, Hugh Grenfal, Jr., certify that:

1. 	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Ancona
Mining Corporation;

2. 	Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report 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 quarterly report;

3.  	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this quarterly report.

4. 	The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
we have:

a) 	designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report
is being prepared;

b) 	evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing
date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) 	presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. 	The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and
the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):

a) 	all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability
to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
internal controls;

and
b) 	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls; and

6. 	The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated
in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes
in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly
affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Dated this 12th day of February, 2004

/s/


(Signature)
Hugh Grenfal, Jr.
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer