alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
First Department,

February, 1948.

(February 10, 1948.) 

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. W. A. Realty Corporation, Respondent, against Harry B. Chambers et al., Constituting the Tax Commission of the City of New York, Appellants. [67-73 W. 44th St. and 1140-1444 Avenue of the Americas, Borough of Manhattan.]

The above-named respondents-appellants. having moved for a resettlement of the order made herein and filed in the office of the clerk of this court on the 14th day of January, 1948,

How, upon reading and filing the notice of this application, the affidavit of J ohn F. Kelly in support of the motion, and the memorandum of Mr. Christian S. Lorentzen in opposition thereto, and after hearing Mr. John F. Kelly for the motion and Mr. Christian S. Lorentzen opposed

It is ordered that the said order entered herein be and the same hereby is resettled so as to read as follows:

At a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court held in and for the First Judicial Department in the County of Hew York on the 19th day of December, 1947.

Present:

Hon. David W. Peck, Presiding Justice,

Hon. Edward J. Glennon Hon. Albert Cohn Hon. John Van Yoorhis Hon. Bernard L. Shientag

Justices
39–008

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 1st Session 109–63

WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H. CON. RES. 95, THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE 

BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

APRIL 28, 2005.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. PUTNAM, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 248] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 248, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives all points of order against the conference 

report and against its consideration. The rule provides that the 

conference report shall be considered as read. The rule provides 

one hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by 

the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

the Budget. 

Section 2 of the resolution establishes a separate order for the 

109th Congress creating a point of order in the Committee of the 

Whole against a motion to rise and report a general appropriations 

bill if the bill, as amended, is found to be in breach of its 302(b) 

allocation. 

Any Member may raise this point of order. A breach in an allocation will be determined by the Chair, based on estimates provided 

by the Budget Committee, as is currently prescribed in the Budget 

Act. 

If the Chair sustains the point of order, the Chair will put the 

question to the Committee: ‘‘Shall the Committee rise and report 

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 

adopted notwithstanding that the bill exceeds an applicable allocation of new budget authority under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974?’’ 

There will be 10 minutes of debate on the question, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent. At the conclusion of debate the Chair would put the question to the Committee. If the motion to rise and report is defeated, no further 

2

amendment shall be in order except: one proper amendment, which 

is unamendable, to be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and 

controlled by a proponent and an opponent; and multiple pro forma 

amendments, if offered by the Chairman and ranking minority 

member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designee, for 

the purpose of debate. 

Finally, this point of order is only applicable once for a given bill 

and does not apply to a motion offered under clause 2(d) of Rule 

XXI. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

The waiver of all points of order against consideration of the conference report includes a waiver of clause 4(a)(1) of rule XIII (requiring a three-day layover of the committee report). The waiver is 

needed because the Committee on Budget report (H. Rept. 109–62) 

was not filed until Thursday, April 28, 2005 and the conference report will be considered in the House today.

Æ
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-40605

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CLEMENTE SANCHEZ-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-01-CR-55-1

--------------------

February 21, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Clemente

Sanchez-Rodriguez (Sanchez) on appeal has moved for leave to

withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Sanchez has filed a letter in

response to counsel’s motion in which he moves to proceed pro se

on appeal. Sanchez’s motion to proceed pro se is DENIED. United

States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses

no nonfrivolous appellate issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion
No. 01-40605 

-2-

for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.
Exhibit 10.2

      

      

      

       

      

      

      4/3/2021

      
         

          

        Partner Communications Company Ltd.

        8 Amal Street

        Afeq Industrial Park

        Rosh-Ha’ayin 48103

        Israel

        

        

        Dear Sirs:

        On behalf of BDO Ziv Haft Consulting & Management
            Ltd, Amot BDO House Building 46- 48 Menachem Begin Av. Tel-Aviv (the “Consultant”), I hereby confirm that the Consultant has reviewed the information set forth in the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2020 (the “Form
            20-F”), for the financial statements of Partner Communications Company Ltd., under Note 4(a)(2) " Assessing the recoverable amount for impairment tests of non-financial assets ", Note 4(3)" Assessing the recoverable amount for impairment tests
            of goodwill ",and Note 13 "Impairment tests"; Item 5A.1e " Impairment tests ", Item 5A.1q(2) "Assessing the recoverable amount for impairment tests of non-financial assets " , and Item 5A.1q(3) " Assessing the recoverable amount for impairment tests of goodwill"  in the Form 20-F all with respect to testing for
            impairment of assets and the results thereof.

        

        

        The Consultant hereby confirms the information referred to above and consents to being named in the Form 20-F as an “expert”.

        

        

        BDO Consulting

        Name: Moti Dattelkramer 

        Title: Partner

        Signature: ___/s/_______
#### § 4.814 Certificate of service.

The original of every document filed and required to be served upon parties shall be endorsed with a certificate of service signed by the party or amicus curiae making service or by his attorney or representative, stating that such service has been made, the date of service, and the manner of service.
§ 6.1 Definitions. As used in this subpart: ( a ) The term *Department* means the Department of the Interior.
( b ) The term *Secretary* means the Secretary of the Interior.
( c ) The term *Solicitor* means the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, or anyone authorized to act for him.
( d ) The term *Commissioner* means the Commissioner of Patents, or any Assistant Commissioner who may act for the Commissioner of Patents.
( e ) The term *invention* means any new and useful art, process, method, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, or any new variety of plant, or any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, which is or may be patentable under the laws of the United States.
( f ) The term *employee* as used in this part includes a part time consultant, a part time employee or a special employee (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202) of the Department insofar as inventions made during periods of official duty are concerned, except when special circumstances in a specific case require an exemption in order to meet the needs of the Department, each such exemption to be subject to the approval of the Commissioner.
( g ) The term *governmental purpose* means the right of the Government of the United States (including any agency thereof, state, or domestic municipal government) to practice and have practiced (made or have made, used or have used, sold or have sold) throughout the world by or on behalf of the Government of the United States.
( h ) The *making of the invention* means the conception or first actual reduction to practice of such invention.
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

Rocks & Minerals
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1345

RANDALL DOUGLAS WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DUKE POWER COMPANY; JEFFERSON-PILOT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-264) Submitted: July 23, 2003 Decided: October 6, 2003 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall Douglas Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Stacy Kaplan Wood, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina; Thomas Drake Garlitz, GARLITZ & WILLIAMSON, P.L.L.C., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Randall Douglas Wright appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Wright v. Duke Power Company , No. CA-01-264 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 3, 2003, Mar. 5, 2003, Mar. 6, 2003 & Mar. 10, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 402.1 Purpose of this subpart. The regulations in this subpart apply to the sale of certain classes of lands that are subject to the reclamation laws and that may be sold under one of the following statutes: ( a ) The Act of May 20, 1920 (41 Stat. 605; 43 U.S.C. 375);
( b ) The Act of May 16, 1930 (46 Stat. 367; 43 U.S.C. 424 through 424e); or
( c ) The Act of March 31, 1950 (64 Stat. 39; 43 U.S.C. Sup. 375b through 375f).
exhibit 3c                                        FILED# C5191-01
                                                    AUG 02 2002
                                                  IN THE OFFICE OF
                                                    DEAN HELLER
                                                 SECRETARY OF STATE

          Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation
                     For Nevada Profit Corporations
      (Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 - After Issuance of Stock)
                          -Remit in Duplicate -

1. Name of corporation:  ATR Search Corporation. (C5191-2001)


2. The articles have been amended as follows (provide article numbers,
if available):

                ARTICLE I is amended to read as follows:

     1.   Name of Company:

                        CareDecision Corporation

                ARTICLE 4 is amended to read as follows:

     4.   Authorized Shares:

The aggregate number of shares which the corporation shall have
authority to issue shall consist of 200,000,000 shares of Common Stock
having a $.001 par value, and 5,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock having
a $.001 par value. The Common Stock and Preferred Stock of the Company
may be issued from time to time without prior approval by the
stockholders. The Common Stock and Preferred Stock may be issued for
such consideration as may be fixed from time to time by the Board of
Directors. The Board of Directors may issue such share of Common Stock
and Preferred Stock in one or more series, with such voting powers,
designations, preferences and rights or qualifications, limitations or
restrictions thereof as shall be stated in the resolution or
resolutions.


3. The vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the corporation
entitling them to exercise at least a majority of the voting power, or
such greater portion of the voting power as may be required in the case
of a vote by classes or series, or may be required by the provisions of
the articles of incorporation have voted in favor of the amendment is:
a majority.
----------


4. Signatures:


/s/ Michael Vogel                       /s/ Robert Cox
-------------------------               ----------------------
Michael Vogel, Secretary,               Robert Cox, President,
Treasurer & Director                    CEO & Director


/s/ Peter Giacalone
-------------------------
Peter Giacalone, Director



IMPORTANT:     Failure to include any of the above information and remit
the proper fees may cause this filing to be rejected.



                Nevada Secretary of State Form 78.385 PROFIT AMEND199901
                                                    Revised on  07/21/01


/1/
# Submerged Resources - Request for Assistance
### **CHAPTER 38—ENVIRONMENTAL TAXES**

Subchapter
Sec. 1
A.
Tax on petroleum
4611

B.
Tax on certain chemicals
4661
C.
Tax on certain imported substances
4671
D.
Ozone-depleting chemicals, etc.
4681

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior chapter 38, consisting of sections 4521 to 4603 and relating to import taxes, was repealed by Pub. L. 87–456, title III, §302(d), May 24, 1962, 76 Stat. 77, and Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1904(a)(15), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1814.

#### Amendments

**1989**—Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, §7506(b), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2369, added item for subchapter D.

**1986**—Pub. L. 99–499, title V, §515(b), Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1769, added item for subchapter C.

Pub. L. 99–499, title V, §514(a)(2), Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1767, struck out item for subchapter C.

**1980**—Pub. L. 96–510, title II, §231(b), Dec. 11, 1980, 94 Stat. 2804, added item for subchapter C.

Pub. L. 96–510, title II, §211(a), Dec. 11, 1980, 94 Stat. 2797, added chapter 38 and analysis of subchapters consisting of items A and B.

1  Section numbers editorially supplied.
#### § 3601.50 Administration of sales contracts and free use permits.
(No. 1178

Claimant awarded $3,094.50.)

#### Harold W. Nuttall, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 29, 1927.*

Workmen’s compensation *act*— when *award*made, *under provision of.*Where claimant was directed by his superior officer to perform a duty on behalf of the State, and in the performance of his duty, and in the course of his employment, he is injured, he is entitled to an award based upon the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

A. C. Bohm, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant was employed by the State of Illinois on the 26th day of February, 1925, as a highway patrolman, working under the supervision and direction of the Division of Highways, and while thus employed was ordered and directed by the district engineer’s office, of the Division of Highways to attend a meeting to be held at Elgin, Illinois, on the 26th day of February, 1925, to be present there for a discussion and talk upon maintenance and repair .of bond issue roads, to be given by the maintenance engineer of the Division of Highways of the State of Illinois.

Claimant attended said meeting in the line of his duty, and after the close of said meeting he got into his automobile and left for his home at Waukegan, Illinois. The city of Elgin, Illinois, is outside of the district assigned to this claimant.

While driving to his home at Waukegan, he collided with a street car in Elgin, Illinois, and damaged his automobile to the extent of $175.00, and in addition thereto suffered a broken jaw bone, and a broken left arm and other physical injuries. *351Anldylosis developed in Ms left arm, and claimant has permanently lost 75% of the use of said injured arm.

It appears that claimant was injured in the course of his employment in line of duty and suffered damages while acting as an employee of the State of Illinois, and claimant is entitled to compensation, and, measuring claimant’s damages under said act and from the evidence, it is recommended by the court that the claimant be allowed the sum of $3,094.50.
#### Fender *et al. v.*Shaw, receiver.

Lumpkin, J.

1. There was no abuse of discretion in granting an interlocutory' injunction, to continue of force until the final trial of the cause.

(a) The demurrers were not passed upon as such, but considered as part of the cause shown by the defendant against the grant of the interlocutory injunction.

2. The order granting the injunction is so worded as to be susceptible of the construction that other relief, final in character, was also granted *225on the interlocutory hearing. It reads, that “the restraining order is made continuous and the prayers of plaintiff .is [are] hereby granted.” Direction is given to so modify it as to eliminate • this ambiguity and leave the grant of the interlocutory injunction to stand'.

October 11, 1910.

Injunction. Before Judge Mitchell. Berrien superior court. May 16, 1910.

*E. K. Wilcox,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Hendricks & Christian,*contra.

*Judgment*affirmed, *with direction.*

*All the Justices concur.*
M&I 2004 Sch B-3A.Z08.xls

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS INCLUDED IN FISCAL YEAR 2004

2006 M&I WATER RATES

Voluntary Payments

Date Deficit Gra

Facility/Contractor Payments Received Prior Year Current Year 30-day window * Total Capital to 

Contra Costa Canal

Contra Costa WD 226,745.00 1/ N/A 0.00 226,745.00 226

68,266.00 2/ 9/5/03 68,266.00 68,266.00 68

 2/ 10/2/03 55,506.00 55,506.00 55,506.00 55

184,197.56 2/ 11/1/03 184,197.56 184,197.56 184

 2/ 12/1/03 63,162.00 63,162.00 63,162.00 63

 2/ 12/24/03 168,128.44 272,290.72 168,128.44 168

 2/ 2/4/04 40,832.00 0.00 

337,034.42 2/ 3/4/04 0.00 249,745.64 2/ 4/3/04 0.00 160,552.00 2/ 5/1/04 0.00 560,046.44 2/ 6/5/04 0.00 

92,778.00 2/ 6/30/04 0.00 86,198.00 2/ 7/21/04 0.00 23,414.49 2/ 10/14/04 0.00 

 Total Contra Costa Canal 2,420,768.27 539,260.00 539,260.00 226,745.00 766

Cow Creek Unit

Bella Vista WD 99,422.04 9/17/04 99,422.04 99,422.04 99

Folsom D&R

Sacramento County WA 39,495.10 10/30/03 17,311.42 17,311.42 12,032.53 29

Friant-Kern Canal

Lindsay-Strathmore ID N/A (12,520.25) (12,520.25) (12

Sacramento River

Riverview Golf & CC 132.51 10/18/03 52.13 52.13 Riverview Golf & CC 245.52 4/ N/A 245.52 245.52  Total Sacramento River 378.03 297.65 297.65 

Toyon Pipeline

City of Shasta Lake N/A (16,471.65) (16,471.65) (16Total 2,560,063.44 116,733.46 539,557.65 (28,991.90) 627,299.21 238,777.53 866

FOOTNOTES1/ Contra Costa WD - District's amendatory contract (dated May 26, 1994) requires payment at a fixed $2.50 per A/F administrative charge.

Revenue is creditable to capital repayment in the amount of $ 226,745.00

2/ District's FY 2004 Rate Differential Payment.3/ $80.38 will be applied to the FY 2005 water charges .4/ Excess voluntary payments for FY 1992, FY 1995, FY 1997 and FY 1998 were applied at the contractor's request as a result of retroactive adjustment due to Sly Park D&R and Sugar Pine 

5/ $10,151.14 will be applied to the FY 2005 water charges at the Agency's request per the letter dated June 9, 2005.6/ The District requested the payments be used to pay off the prior year water charges per the letter dated 6/10/2005. Ref: DOC ID#: BD050520W31AJ ($2,571,407.55)7/ Of this amount $830.18 will be reapplied to the prior year deficit in the 2005 accounting at the District's request per the email dated 8/12/05. 8/ 2004 O&M surplus was refunded at the contractor's request in response to the Refund Provision Analysis letter dated July 13, 2005.* Based on the voluntary payment policy, contractors can qualify to pay for FY 2004 after the end of the year. Contractors are given a 30-day window to make payments. 

These payments are included and will be applied to FY 2004.

9/23/2005
§ 45.34 What is the law governing ex parte communications? ( a ) Ex parte communications with the ALJ or his or her staff are prohibited in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 554(d).
( b ) This section does not prohibit ex parte inquiries concerning case status or procedural requirements, unless the inquiry involves an area of controversy in the hearing process.
#### § 44.55 Can a unit of general local government protest the results of payment computations?

Any affected local government may file a protest with the Department.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSparse distributed memorySparse distributed memory was proposed be Pentti Kanerva as a realizable architecture that could store large patterns and retrieve them based on partial matches with patterns representing current sensory inputs. This memory exhibits behaviors, both in theory and in experiment, that resemble those previously unapproached by machines - e.g., rapid recognition of faces or odors, discovery of new connections between seemingly unrelated ideas, continuation of a sequence of events when given a cue from the middle, knowing that one doesn't know, or getting stuck with an answer on the tip of one's tongue. These behaviors are now within reach of machines that can be incorporated into the computing systems of robots capable of seeing, talking, and manipulating. Kanerva's theory is a break with the Western rationalistic tradition, allowing a new interpretation of learning and cognition that respects biology and the mysteries of individual human beings.Document ID19920002425Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypePreprint (Draft being sent to journal)AuthorsDenning, Peter J.*(Research Inst. for Advanced Computer Science Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 20, 1989Subject CategoryComputer Operations And HardwareReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-188841RIACS-TR-89-22NAS 1.26:188841Accession Number92N11643Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NCC2-387Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19920002425.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 30.269 What notice of the hearing will the judge provide? On receiving a demand for hearing, the judge must: ( a ) Set a time and place for the hearing after expiration of the 30-day period fixed for the filing of the demand for hearing as provided in § 30.268; and
( b ) Mail a notice of the hearing to all interested parties not less than 20 days in advance of the hearing.