alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             574
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,104
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     10,929
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             213
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               211
<LOANS>                                         48,290
<ALLOWANCE>                                        809
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  64,412
<DEPOSITS>                                      55,513
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                339
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,549
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  64,412
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,900
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  542
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   127
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,569
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,633
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,633
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,936
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,318
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    761
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         761
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       478
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .63
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.11
<LOANS-NON>                                         85
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    77
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   824
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       14
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  810
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                96
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            714


</TABLE>
§ 313.5 Procedures for guidance documents identified as “significant.” ( a ) Whenever a guidance document is proposed to be issued by the Agency, a copy of the proposed guidance document will be reviewed by the Office of the General Counsel and provided to OMB/OIRA for a “significance” determination pursuant to Executive Order 12866.
( b ) Following review and an affirmative “significance” determination by OMB/OIRA pursuant to Executive Order 12866, the guidance document will be reviewed by the Senior Policy Committee which may recommend that it be approved by the Director for issuance as a “significant” guidance document and the Agency may issue the guidance following approval by the Director.
( c ) If the guidance document is determined by OMB/OIRA not to be “significant” within the meaning of § 313.4, the Agency or office within the Agency may proceed to issue the guidance.
#### Benjamin F. Turner, appellee, v. Henry E. Hedberg and James E. Bistor, trading as Hedberg & Bistor, appellants.

Gen. No. 27,727.

Suit for money claimed for obtaining purchaser for hotel building. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Wells M. Cook, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 9, 1923.

*Certiorari*denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).

Francis E. Hinckley, for appellants; Herbert C. Strausehild, of counsel. Louis A. Heile, for appellee.

Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.
**Part I, Section B, Item C -**  **ID Method T**  **- C507**  **3 P**
Exhibit 32.2








CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of DXP Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/Mac McConnell


Mac McConnell


Chief Financial Officer





February 2, 2010





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 29, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00871

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.M., M.M., AND V.M.

,

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017PA01429

Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The app ellant ’ s motion for e xtension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is

extended to February 7, 2019.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 29th day of January, 20 19

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Agricultural Research Service 

# AGENCY:

Agricultural Research Service, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Notice of availability and intent. 

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that the table grape variety designated “Autumn King” is available for licensing and that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to the California Table Grape Commission of Fresno, California, an exclusive license to this variety. 

# DATES:

                        Comments must be received within ninety (90) calendar days of the date of publication of this Notice in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# ADDRESSES:

Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Room 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

June Blalock of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Government's patent rights to this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as the California Table Grape Commission of Fresno, California, has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within ninety (90) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. 

Richard J. Brenner, 

Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 04-28059 Filed 12-22-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
### §7113. Relationship with States

Whenever any proposed action by the Department conflicts with the energy plan of any State, the Department shall give due consideration to the needs of such State, and where practicable, shall attempt to resolve such conflict through consultations with appropriate State officials. Nothing in this chapter shall affect the authority of any State over matters exclusively within its jurisdiction.

(Pub. L. 95–91, title I, §103, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 569.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 95–91, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 565, known as the Department of Energy Organization Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7101 of this title and Tables.
#### § 96.74 Scope.

The provisions in this subpart establish the procedures governing adverse action by an accrediting entity against accredited agencies and approved persons.

[71 FR 8131, Feb. 15, 2006, as amended at 79 FR 40636, July 14, 2014]
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DONNELL HATCHER,

Defendant. /

No. CR 09-00625 CRB

 CR 92-01 CRB

 

ORDER DIRECTING BRIEFING ON

TWO MOTIONS

Currently pending are two motions by Donell Hatcher: (1) a Motion for Modification

of Term of Imprisonment Pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (dkt. 2442) and (2) a

Petition for the Correction of Sentence in light of Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136

S.Ct. 1338 (2016) (dkt. 2444). Although this case was for some period of time on appeal

with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, see Order Denying Motions (dkt. 2435) (explaining

that “Defendant is advised to direct his concerns to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals”), the

Ninth Circuit has since dismissed Hatcher’s appeal, finding that Hatcher “failed to perfect” it,

see USCA Order (dkt. 2440). Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the government to respond

to the two pending motions, within thirty days of this order. Hatcher may then file a reply in

support of each motion, if he wishes to do so, within fourteen days of his receipt of 

//

//

Case 3:09-cr-00625-CRB Document 302 Filed 08/09/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

the government’s oppositions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2016 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cr-00625-CRB Document 302 Filed 08/09/16 Page 2 of 2
### §6831. Congressional findings and purpose

(a) The Congress finds that—

(1) large amounts of fuel and energy are consumed unnecessarily each year in heating, cooling, ventilating, and providing domestic hot water for newly constructed residential and commercial buildings because such buildings lack adequate energy conservation features;

(2) Federal voluntary performance standards for newly constructed buildings can prevent such waste of energy, which the Nation can no longer afford in view of its current and anticipated energy shortage;

(3) the failure to provide adequate energy conservation measures in newly constructed buildings increases long-term operating costs that may affect adversely the repayment of, and security for, loans made, insured, or guaranteed by Federal agencies or made by federally insured or regulated instrumentalities; and

(4) State and local building codes or similar controls can provide an existing means by which to assure, in coordination with other building requirements and with a minimum of Federal interference in State and local transactions, that newly constructed buildings contain adequate energy conservation features.

(b) The purposes of this subchapter, therefore, are to—

(1) redirect Federal policies and practices to assure that reasonable energy conservation features will be incorporated into new commercial and residential buildings receiving Federal financial assistance;

(2) provide for the development and implementation, as soon as practicable, of voluntary performance standards for new residential and commercial buildings which are designed to achieve the maximum practicable improvements in energy efficiency and increases in the use of nondepletable sources of energy; and

(3) encourage States and local governments to adopt and enforce such standards through their existing building codes and other construction control mechanisms, or to apply them through a special approval process.

(Pub. L. 94–385, title III, §302, Aug. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1144; Pub. L. 97–35, title X, §1041(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 621.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1981—Subsecs. (a)(2), (b)(2). Pub. L. 97–35 inserted "voluntary" before "performance standards".

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

#### Effective Date of 1981 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–35 effective Aug. 13, 1981, see section 1038 of Pub. L. 97–35, set out as a note under section 6240 of this title.

#### Short Title

For short title of this subchapter as the "Energy Conservation Standards for New Buildings Act of 1976", see section 301 of Pub. L. 94–385, set out as a note under section 6801 of this title.
#### § 506.7 Exceptions.

The Director of the Board and the Associate Director for Management may except positions from inclusion in this program as necessary to carry out the mission of the Board.
#### § 1005.109 Guarantee fees.

HUD shall establish and collect, at the time of issuance of the guarantee, a fee for the guarantee of loans under this section, in an amount not exceeding 3 percent of the principal obligation of the loan, or any increase established by statute. HUD shall establish the amount of the fee by publishing a notice in the Federal Register, and shall deposit any fees collected under this section in the Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund.

[79 FR 12384, Mar. 5, 2014]
#### § 906.1 Decision whether to hold a hearing.

After deciding either to accept jurisdiction over a grievance or to postpone decision of that question under § 904.2(a) of this chapter, the Board will make an initial determination of whether a hearing shall be held in accordance with part 906 of this chapter, or whether the grievance shall be resolved without a hearing in accordance with part 907 of this chapter. The Board may reconsider its decision as to holding a hearing upon the written request of any party or on its own initiative.
## APPENDIX F: Cecil County VMT and Emission Summary

County VMTSpeed (mph) HC

(tons/day)NOX

(tons/day)

Cecil4,052,38744.1 2.16 7.23

## Cecil County VMT and Emission Summary By Functional Class

Functional ClassVMT Speed (mph) HC

(tons/day) NOX

(tons/day) 1) Interstate 1,130,744 65.9 0.53 3.4 2) Principal Arter183,531 44.7 0.09 0.28 6) Minor Arterial799,714 49 0.4 1.04 7) Major Collector190,103 40.4 0.1 0.18 8) Minor Collector199,910 39.3 0.1 0.19 9) Local 334,069 30.6 0.27 0.35 11) Interstate 324,986 58.7 0.15 1 12) Expressway41,822 49 0.02 0.04 14) Principal Arter554,076 32.8 0.31 0.49 16) Minor Arterial117,363 31.7 0.07 0.11 17) Collector 87,996 28.2 0.05 0.07 19) Local 88,073 25.5 0.07 0.09

Area Total 4,052,387 44.1 2.16 7.23

2

## Cecil County VMT and Emission Summary By Vehicle Type

Vehicle Type VMT Speed (mph) HC

(tons/day) NOX

(tons/day) 1) LDGV 1,419,406 0.98 0.69 2) LDGT1 325,988 0.11 0.11 3) LDGT2 1,085,430 0.4 0.54 4) LDGT3 340,388 0.24 0.27 5) LDGT4 156,355 0.12 0.17 6) HDGV2B 158,286 0.08 0.48 7) HDGV3 5,472 0 0.02 8) HDGV4 1,760 0 0.01 9) HDGV5 5,610 0 0.02 10) HDGV6 11,752 0.01 0.04 11) HDGV7 4,895 0 0.02 12) HDGV8A 12 0 0 13) HDGV8B 0 0 0 14) HDGB 1,056 0 0.01 15) LDDV 2,069 0 0 16) LDDT12 45,913 0.01 0.01 17) LDDT34 7,302 0 0.01 18) HDDV2B 48,464 0.01 0.2 19) HDDV3 14,841 0 0.06 20) HDDV4 15,220 0 0.08 21) HDDV5 7,152 0 0.04 22) HDDV6 34,406 0.01 0.25 23) HDDV7 49,874 0.02 0.46 24) HDDV8A 59,531 0.02 0.65 25) HDDV8B211,531 0.08 2.75 26) HDDBT 7,344 0 0.14 27) HDDBS 13,630 0.01 0.17 28) MC 18,706 0.05 0.03

Area Total4,052,393 44.1 2.16 7.23

3
#### Jacob M. Shapiro, Respondent, v Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

In an action, *inter alia,*to declare that certain disclaimers of coverage by the defendant insurers were improper and wrongful, defendant Aetna Casualty and Surety Company appeals (1) as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 31, 1977, as granted plaintiffs motion to dismiss affirmative defenses and for summary judgment to the extent of (a) requiring defendants to defend the action and (b) directing a hearing to assess damages incurred by plaintiff in the defense of the action, (2) from an order of the same court, dated May 20, 1977, which denied Aetna’s motion for reargument and (3) from the judgment of the same court, dated September 27, 1977, which is in favor of plaintiff upon the assessment of damages had pursuant to the first above-described order. Appeal from the order dated January 31, 1977 dismissed on the grounds (1) of failure to file a timely notice of appeal and (2) the right to take an independent appeal from the order terminated with entry of the judgment (see *Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). Appeal from the order dated May 20, 1977 dismissed. No appeal lies from the denial of a motion for reargument. Judgment reversed, on the law, and motion to dismiss affirmative defenses and for summary judgment denied. Appellant is awarded one bill of costs to cover all appeals. There was a triable issue of fact whether the professional liability coverage under defendant Aetna’s policy of insurance was in effect at the relevant times. The policy at issue—which by its terms covered the three-year period of May 13, 1973 to May 13, 1976—originally contained excess professional liability coverage. On December 5, 1973 the agency that wrote the policy on behalf of plaintiff eliminated the aforesaid coverage from its policy—allegedly at plaintiffs request—and so notified Aetna. The latter complied with the request by proper indorsement and remitted its draft for $82 (unearned premium) to the agent. The date of the occurrence long antedated the commencement of the underlying suit which precipitated this action. If proof of the receipt of $82 by plaintiff, in the form of cash, credit or otherwise, had been shown in the record, we would have granted summary *1017judgment to Aetna. The question whether such amount was received by plaintiff constitutes the triable issue of fact to be determined at Special Term. Titone, J. P., Gulotta, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 05-1020 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Status of Forces 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and SURINAME 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Paramaribo April 11 and October 20, 2005 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 SURINAME 

 Defense: Status of Forces 

 Agreement effected by exchange of notes at 

 Paramaribo April 11 and October 20, 2005; 

 Entered into force October 20, 2005.
§ 906.8 Witnesses. ( a ) *General.* Each party shall be entitled to examine and cross-examine witnesses at the hearing or by deposition. A party wishing to take the deposition of a witness shall give the other parties reasonable notice of the time and place of the deposition and of the identity of the witness.
( b ) *Availability.* Upon request of the Board or upon request of the grievant/charged employee deemed relevant and material by the Board, an Agency shall promptly make available at the hearing or by deposition any witness under its control, supervision or responsibility. If the Board determines that the actual presence of such witness at the hearing is required for just resolution of the case, the witness shall be made available at the hearing, with necessary costs and travel expenses paid by the Agency which is a party to the hearing.
( c ) *Notice.* The parties are responsible for notifying their witnesses and for arranging for their appearance at the time and place set for the hearing. The Board may preclude a witness from testifying because of the failure of the party responsible for witness' appearance to comply with this section.
### §5189c. Transportation assistance to individuals and households

The President may provide transportation assistance to relocate individuals displaced from their predisaster primary residences as a result of an incident declared under this chapter or otherwise transported from their predisaster primary residences under section 5170b(a)(3) or 5192 of this title, to and from alternative locations for short or long-term accommodation or to return an individual or household to their predisaster primary residence or alternative location, as determined necessary by the President.

(Pub. L. 93–288, title IV, §425, as added Pub. L. 109–295, title VI, §689f, Oct. 4, 2006, 120 Stat. 1452.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 93–288, May 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 143. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5121 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Another section 425 of Pub. L. 93–288 was renumbered section 427 and is classified to section 5189e of this title.
#### In the Matter of Arbitration between Otello Mantovani, Appellant, and Tradax Overseas, S.A., Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on November 8, 1976, unanimously affirmed on the *514opinions of Stecher, J., in the companion cases of *Matter of Fribesco (Mitsui & Co.)*and *Matter of Pagnan & F.LLI. (Finagrain, S.A.),*and judgment of said court entered on November 22, 1976, unanimously affirmed on the opinion of Stecher, J. in *Matter of Pagnan & F.LLI. (Finagrain, S.A.).*Respondent shall recover of appellant $40 costs and disbursements of these appeals. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Evans, Capozzoli and Markewich, JJ.
Case 3:08-cv-03630-BZ Document 100 Filed 04/02/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:08-cv-03630-BZ Document 100 Filed 04/02/10 Page 2 of 2