alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### SUBCHAPTER II—RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT OF 1935

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This subchapter was comprised of act Aug. 29, 1935, ch. 812, §§1–14, 49 Stat. 967 to 973, known as the Railroad Retirement Act of 1935, and was amended in its entirety and completely revised by act June 24, 1937, ch. 382, 50 Stat. 307. The act, as amended and revised, was redesignated the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937 and was classified to subchapter III of this chapter. The Railroad Retirement Act of 1935 continued in effect with respect to individuals granted annuities prior to enactment of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937. It was specifically amended by act June 11, 1940, ch. 307, §2, 54 Stat. 264, and by act Aug. 13, 1940, ch. 664, §§2, 3, 54 Stat. 785.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

) 

RECEIVED 

.IUN 2 3 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

In the Matter of Jett Pro Line Maintenance ) FAACaseNo.2011WP910076 

) 

Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT 

As this matter has been settled, the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA'') hereby 

withdraws the complaint filed in this matter. 

Dated this 23rd day of June, 2014. 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

Killingham 

ore ent Division 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

(202) 267-7728 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Withdrawal of Complaint, In the Matter of Jett Pro Line 

Maintenance, FAA Case No. 2011 WP910076, (FDMS NO. FAA-2013-1077) has been mailed 

this date by facsimile and certified mail, to: 

John Craig Weller, Esq. 

Aerlex Law Group 

2800 28'11 Street 

Santa Monica, CA. 90405 

Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

The original and a copy was also personally delivered to: 

Hearing Docket (Original and I copy) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Room 2WIOOO-AGC-430 

Washington, DC 20591 

June 23, 2014
### §1332. National encampments of Veterans' organizations; proceedings printed annually for Congress

The proceedings of the national encampments of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, the American Legion, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the Veterans of World War I of the United States of America, Incorporated, the Disabled American Veterans, and the AMVETS (American Veterans of World War II), respectively, shall be printed annually, with accompanying illustrations, as separate House documents of the session of the Congress to which they may be submitted.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1270; Pub. L. 105–225, §3, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1498.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §275b (Mar. 2, 1931, ch. 378, §1, 46 Stat. 1481; Sept. 18, 1941, ch. 411, 55 Stat. 686; July 15, 1942, ch. 505, §1, 56 Stat. 659; Aug. 27, 1963, Pub. L. 88–105, §1, 77 Stat. 130; Dec. 21, 1963, Pub. L. 88–224, 77 Stat. 469).

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–225 struck out "the United Spanish War Veterans," before "the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States".
#### In the Matter of Helene Klein, on Behalf of Stephanie Klein, an Infant, Respondent, against Ralph Klein, Appellant.

In a proceeding to fix the amount of support for an infant daughter of the parties, the former husband appeals from a final order of the Domestic Relations Court of the City of New York, Family Court Division, Queens County, dated July 7, 1959, which: (1) directed that he pay $85 a week for the support of said infant; (2) directed that he pay $250 for counsel fees in this proceeding to the attorney for his former wife, the petitioner herein; and (3) refused to make any direction as to the husband’s visitation rights with respect to said infant. The husband also brings up for review, an intermediate order of the same court, dated July 29, 1957, which denied, on jurisdictional grounds, his application for summer visitation rights to the infant. Final order modified on the facts by reducing the amount of support for the child from $85 to $55 a week. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact insofar as they may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. In our opinion, under the circumstances disclosed by this record, the amount awarded for the support of the child was excessive. Appeal from the intermediate order dismissed, without costs. A prior appeal from said order was dismissed on the ground that a separate appeal may not be taken from an intermediate order in a proceeding of this nature *(Klein*v. *Klein,*8 A D 2d 844). Said intermediate order is not reviewable now on the appeal from the final order because the intermediate order is not one which necessarily affects the final order (Civ. Prac. Act, § 580; N. Y. City Dom. Rel. Ct. Act, § 58). If we did consider the intermediate order on the merits, however, we would affirm it on the ground that the Domestic Relations Court does not have jurisdiction to order visitation of a child of divorced parents and, as the said court indicated, the former husband’s remedy lies in the Supreme Court. Beldoek, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
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




In
connection with the Annual Report of Rand Logistics, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 25, 2009 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacity and on 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:


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




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




Date:
      June
      25, 2009
            
            /s/ Joseph
      W. McHugh, Jr.Joseph
      W. McHugh, Jr.Chief
      Financial Officer
§ 35.915 Calculating Federal rehabilitation assistance. ( a ) *Applicability.* This section applies to recipients of Federal rehabilitation assistance.
( b ) *Rehabilitation assistance.* ( 1 ) Lead-based paint requirements for rehabilitation fall into three categories that depend on the amount of Federal rehabilitation assistance provided. The three categories are: ( i ) Assistance of up to and including $5,000 per unit;
( ii ) Assistance of more than $5,000 per unit up to and including $25,000 per unit; and
( iii ) Assistance of more than $25,000 per unit.
( 2 ) For purposes of implementing §§ 35.930 and 35.935, the amount of rehabilitation assistance is the lesser of two amounts: the average Federal assistance per assisted dwelling unit and the average per unit hard costs of rehabilitation. Federal assistance includes all Federal funds assisting the project, regardless of the use of the funds. Federal funds being used for acquisition of the property are to be included as well as funds for construction, permits, fees, and other project costs. The hard costs of rehabilitation include all hard costs, regardless of source, except that the costs of lead-based paint hazard evaluation and hazard reduction activities are not to be included. Costs of site preparation, occupant protection, relocation, interim controls, abatement, clearance, and waste handling attributable to compliance with the requirements of this part are not to be included in the hard costs of rehabilitation. All other hard costs are to be included, regardless of whether the source of funds is Federal or non-Federal, public or private.
( c ) *Calculating rehabilitation assistance in properties with both assisted and unassisted dwelling units.* For a residential property that includes both federally assisted and non-assisted units, the rehabilitation costs and Federal assistance associated with non-assisted units are not included in the calculations of the average per unit hard costs of rehabilitation and the average Federal assistance per unit. ( 1 ) The average per unit hard costs of rehabilitation for the assisted units is calculated using the following formula: Per Unit Hard Costs of Rehabilitation $ = (a/c) + (b/d) Where: a = Rehabilitation hard costs for all assisted units (not including common areas and exterior surfaces) b = Rehabilitation hard costs for common areas and exterior painted surfaces c = Number of federally assisted units d = Total number of units
( 2 ) The average Federal assistance per assisted dwelling unit is calculated using the following formula:
Per unit Federal assistance = e/c Where: e = Total Federal assistance for the project c = Number of federally assisted units
[69 FR 34272, June 21, 2004]
Exhibit 23.1

 

CONSENTOFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 333-175177) and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-127783) pertaining to Net Element, Inc. andsubsidiaries of our report dated March 30, 2012, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Net Element, Inc. andsubsidiaries included in this Annual Report on Form 10K/A as of December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, and the related consolidatedstatements of operations, changes in stockholders’ deficiency in assets, and cash flows for the twelve and nine months ended,respectively.

 

/s/ Daszkal Bolton LLP

 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida

April 26, 2012
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
| Date:  | February 7, 2017 | By: |   | /s/ Martin S. Craighead |
|   |   |   |   | Martin S. CraigheadChairman andChief Executive Officer |
#### § 232.825 Pro rata refund of insurance premium.

Upon termination of a loan insurance contract by a payment in full or by a voluntary termination, the Commissioner shall refund to the lender for the account of the borrower an amount equal to the pro rata portion of the current annual loan insurance premium theretofore paid which is applicable to the portion of the year subsequent to the effective date of the termination.
# Patent

## Title
N-phenyl-2,2,6,6-tetrahalocyclohexaneimine

## Abstract

The mother liquor, in addition to the target product, also contains the isomeric 2-acetaminonaphthalene-8sulphonic acid (about 4 mol%) (HPTLC) and traces of 2-acetaminonaphthalene (<0.3 part).

## Background
## Claims

1. In a single-vessel process for preparing 2-acetaminonaphthalene-6-sulfonic acid of high purity by sulfonating 2-hydroxynaphthalene with concentrated sulfonic acid, converting the 2-hydroxynaphthalenesulfonic acid formed thereby with ammonia in the presence of ammonium hydrogensulfite into 2-aminonaphthalene-6-sulfonic acid (Bucherer reaction) and N-acetylating the said 2-aminonaphthalene-6-sulfonic acid to give 2-acetaminonaphthalene-6-sulfonic acid, the improvement which comprises: impurities still present in the resulting aqueous solution of 2-hydroxynaphthalene-6-sulfonic acid by clarification using active carbon.

2. In a single-vessel process for preparing 2-acetaminophthalene-6-sulfonic acid of high purity by sulfonating 2-hydroxynaphthalene with concentrated sulfuric acid, converting the 2-hydroxynaphthalenesulfonic acid formed thereby with ammonia in the presence of ammonium hydrogensulfite into 2-aminonaphthalene-6-sulfonic acid (Bucherer reaction and N-acetylating the said 2-aminonaphthalene-6-sulfonic acid to give 2 acetaminonaphthalene-6-sulfonic acid, the improvement which comprises: impurities still present in the resulting aqueous solution of 2-hydroxynaphthalene-6-sulfonic acid by extraction with toluene or xylene and clarification using active carbon.

3. A process as claimed in claim 2 wherein a said impurity which is removed is 2-hydroxynaphthalene.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                          39,343
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,455,188
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,455,188
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           96,666
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           163
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,357,639
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,455,188
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  236,265
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,997)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    21,293
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (35,290)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (35,290)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00102-CV

EX PARTE N.C.

From the 12th District Court

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 26744

O R D E R

In a single letter to the Court dated June 29, 2016, appellant requests this Court to 

appoint counsel for appellant and also requests a 60-day extension of time to prepare and 

submit an appellate brief in this appeal. This letter was not served on the opposing party 

to this appeal as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5. 

We use Rule 2, however, to dispense with the service requirement for this letter only and 

rule on the merits of appellant’s requests. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2. 

Appellant’s request for the appointment of counsel is denied. Appellant has not 

sufficiently explained or shown why the interest of justice would require the appointment 

of counsel in this proceeding. See Gibson v. Tolbert, 102 S.W.3d 710 (Tex. 2003).
Ex parte N.C. Page 2

Appellant’s request for an extension of time to file his brief, however, is granted. 

Appellant’s brief is due 60 days from the date of this order.

Appellant is notified that every document related to the appeal that is sent to this 

Court must reflect that it also was sent to all other parties of record. TEX. R. APP. P. 6.3 

This includes letters. Id. And every pleading must be accompanied by proof of service 

which complies with the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and any 

applicable filing fee. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5; 5. What is a pleading, rather than a letter, may 

sometimes be hard to determine; but a good general rule-of-thumb is that if you are 

asking the Court for a ruling on anything, or if you are responding to a request by another 

party, your document is probably a pleading that must include proof of service.

Further, appellant is warned that future letters not copied to opposing parties and 

motions and responses not accompanied by proof of service will not be acknowledged or 

acted upon by the Court.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion to appoint counsel denied; 

Motion for extension of time granted

Order issued and filed July 20, 2016
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3113 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3113

   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with or without 
                    saucers, of porcelain or china.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 29, 2005

   Mr. Kirk introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cups, with or without 
                    saucers, of porcelain or china.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN CUPS, WITH OR WITHOUT SAUCERS, OF PORCELAIN OR 
              CHINA.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.09.55      Cups, with or       Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         without saucers,                                                   31/2008
                         of porcelain or
                         china, whether or
                         not put up in
                         sets, put up for
                         mail order retail
                         sale, and each
                         weighing not over
                         1.36 kg together
                         with their retail
                         packaging
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         6911.10.52)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
2011 Employment Agreement Amendment







Pursuant to People’s Republic of China Labor Law, People’s
Republic of China Labor Contract Law and their rules promulgated thereunder, Party A and Party B hereby reach agreement as
follows:







| | I. | Party B agrees that Party A shall adjust Party B’s employment compensation and position according to Party B’s
performance and Party A’s operational needs.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | II. | To increase Party A’s cash flow and for future development, Party B agrees to waive the compensation for the employment
as Chief Financial Officer of Shengtai Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the United States. Party B is entitled to the compensation for
the employment in China, totaling RMB 90,000 ($ 13,923).
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | III. | This Amendment is a part of the Employment Agreement dated July 1, 2009 with same legal effect.
| | ---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | IV. | This Amendment becomes effective upon execution and shall be made two copies. Each Party shall keep one copy.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------











Party A



Weifang Shengtai Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd.



Date: June 30, 2011



Party B



Yongqiang Wang



Date: June 30, 2011
#### W. E. Meyers, trading as W. E. Meyers & Company, plaintiff in error, v. Amanda Aekerlund and Leander Ackerlund, defendants in error.

Gen. No. 27,888.

Action for real estate broker’s commissions. Verdict for plaintiff by default. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John R. Newcomer, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1922.

Reversed and judgment here.

Opinion filed October 17, 1923.

Bernstein, Zoila & Bernstein, for plaintiff in error; Aleck L. Bernstein and Charles Berger, of counsel. No appearance for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice Thomson

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### § 51.204 HUD-assisted hazardous facilities.

In reviewing applications for proposed HUD-assisted projects involving the installation of hazardous facilities, the Department shall ensure that such hazardous facilities are located at an acceptable separation distance from residences and from any other facility or area where people may congregate or be present. The mitigating measures listed in § 51.205 may be taken into account in determining compliance with this section.
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

SANDISK CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LSI CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

LSI CORPORATION and AGERE

SYSTEMS, INC.,

Counterclaimants,

 v.

SANDISK CORPORATION,

Counterdefendant. /

No. C 09-02737 WHA

NOTICE OF SELECTION 

OF RULE 706 EXPERT

The undersigned judge thanks Dr. Chang Choo and Dr. Julius Smith for their willingness

to serve as court-appointed experts and for appearing at the March 3 technology tutorial and

conference. Both candidates were highly qualified, and the decision to appoint only one expert

was difficult. Having considered the availability, hourly rates, and relevant backgrounds of the

two candidates, the Court has selected Dr. Chang Choo for appointment as an expert under 

Rule 706. A formal order of appointment will issue shortly. The parties shall ensure that both 

Dr. Choo and Dr. Smith receive this notice in a timely manner.

Dated: March 17, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-02737-WHA Document 111 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 1
#### § 14.110 When the Act applies.

The Act applies to any adversary adjudication pending or commenced before this Department on or after August 5, 1985. It also applies to any adversary adjudication commenced on or after October 1, 1984, and finally disposed of before August 5, 1985, provided that an application for fees and expenses, as described in subpart B of these rules, has been filed with the Department no later than 30 days after August 5, 1985, and to any adversary adjudication pending on or commenced on or after October 1, 1981, in which an application for fees and other expenses was timely filed and was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
### §421f. Existing loan contracts; negotiation by Secretary of amendments

The Secretary is hereby authorized to negotiate amendments to existing water service and irrigation distribution system loan contracts to conform said contracts to the provisions of sections 421a to 421h of this title.

(July 4, 1955, ch. 271, §6, as added Pub. L. 92–487, Oct. 13, 1972, 86 Stat. 805.)