alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## V E N D O R 

## P R O F I L E

Note: Information is from vendor, however specifications may have

changed. Contact vendor for updates. Water Treatment Catalog and Decision Tool 

### M I S W A C O

Contact Information

Company Name: MI SWACO

Profile: MI SWACO is a supplier/engineerin g designer of drilling fluid systems for drilling performance, fl uid systems and specialty tools for wellbore productivity, produc tion technology to maximize production rates, and environment al design considerations to manage waste volumes generated in during operations. In August 2010, MI SWACO became part of Schlumberger through its merger with Smith In ternational. MI SWACO utilizes treatment technology developed by Texas A&M’s GPRI Designs TM ; MI SWACO represents Texas A&M ’s desalination program commercially for Oil & Gas upstream applications and is currently

involved in a Marcellus Basin treatment program.

Address: 5950 North Course Drive Houston, TX 77072

Phone: 713-739-0222

Website: http://www.miswaco.com/



### Treatment Technology

Category: Membrane

Subcategory: Reverse Osmosis and Micro-Filtration

Technology Name: GPRI Designs TM

Surface Footprint

Process Description: Common RO membrane materials include asymmetric cellulose acetate or polyamide thin film composite. The RO technology developed by GPRI involves pl acing these materials around

hollow fibers smaller than the diamet er of human hair to increase the surface area per cubic feet of volume and subsequently allow

for more efficient filtration. Vari ous microfiltration processes, to
include nanofiltration, are used to increase the RO membranes longevity and efficiency. GPRI’s RO system is equipped to run either single stage or multi- stage membrane treatments and can be configured either for parallel or series membrane flows.

Feedwater TDS/ % Water Recovery Approximately 35, 000 mg/L,

% Waste Stream:

Feed Capacity: 5,000 bpd (assuming similar feed capacity as Geopure, who utilizes GPRI technology)

## V E N D O R 

## P R O F I L E

Note: Information is from vendor, however specifications may have

changed. Contact vendor for updates. Water Treatment Catalog and Decision Tool Costs: $ 0.26 per Bbl for gas well pr oduced brine at approximately 35,000 TDS (power costs only or approximately one-third of the total operating costs)
#### § 1701.4 Privacy Act responsibilities/policy.

The ODNI will administer records about individuals consistent with statutory, administrative, and program responsibilities. Subject to exemptions authorized by the Act, ODNI will collect, maintain and disclose records as required and will honor subjects' rights to view and amend records and to obtain an accounting of disclosures.
#### § 887.10 Information collection.

In accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.,* the OMB has approved the information collection requirements of part 887 and assigned it control number 1029-0107. This information is being collected to support State and Indian tribal grant requests for moneys for the establishment, administration, and operation of self-sustaining State or Indian tribal administered subsidence insurance programs. States and Indian tribes are required to respond to obtain a benefit in accordance with SMCRA. A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

[73 FR 67647, Nov. 14, 2008]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark A. Stearns, Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 724]—

Crew III, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Fulton County (Giardino, J.), rendered August 11, 2005, upon a *974verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of unlawful surveillance in the second degree and endangering the welfare of an incompetent or physically disabled person.

Defendant was employed as a caretaker for the disabled. Following allegations that defendant took pictures of an unclothed mentally disabled person, he was indicted and charged with unlawful surveillance in the second degree in violation of Penal Law § 250.45 (1), as well as endangering the welfare of the victim in violation of Penal Law § 260.25. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted as charged and sentenced to, inter alia, lVs to 4 years in prison. Defendant now appeals.

Initially, defendant contends that the trial evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Specifically, defendant argues that the crime charged in count one of the indictment, also known as “Stephanie’s Law” *(see People v Evans,*27 AD3d 905, 906 [2006], *lv denied*6 NY3d 847 [2006]), was not effective until August 2003 *(see*Penal Law § 250.45 [1], as added by L 2003, ch 69, § 3), and that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he took the pictures after the effective date of the statute. As to count two of the indictment, defendant contends that the People failed to prove that the photographs were taken within the applicable two-year statute of limitations *(see*Penal Law § 260.25; CPL 30.10 [2] [c]). We disagree.

We need note only that expert witnesses testified on behalf of the People and defendant concerning the date the photographs were taken and, assuming the jury credited the People’s expert, there clearly is a valid line of reasoning that could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Likewise, giving deference to the jury’s credibility determinations regarding the experts’ conflicting testimony, we find no basis to conclude that the jury failed to give the trial evidence the weight it should have been accorded *(see id.).*

Assuming, without deciding, that County Court erred in permitting evidence of certain prior bad acts committed by defendant, such error clearly was harmless given the overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt *(see e.g. People v Herring,*227 AD2d 658, 660-661 [1996], *lv denied*88 NY2d 986 [1996]). Finally, we find no merit to defendant’s assertion that his sentence is harsh and excessive.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>


                                                        Exhibit 32


                                  CERTIFICATION
                  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
                      ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b)
                      OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE
                             18, UNITED STATES CODE)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS CORP., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2003 (the "Form
10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in
the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:   September 25, 2003                   /S/VICTOR INSETTA
                                           -------------------------
                                           Chief Executive Officer



Dated:   September 25, 2003                    /S/ANDREW R. PERZ
                                           -------------------------
                                           Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

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

                                    FORM 8-K

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

                                 CURRENT REPORT
                     PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE
                         SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

         Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): July 31, 2003

                            MS Structured Asset Corp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

              Delaware                    333-64879              13-4026700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (State or Other Jurisdiction      (Commission File          (IRS Employer
          of Incorporation)                Number)           Identification No.)

1585 Broadway, New York, New York                                  10036
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)                         (Zip Code)

        Registrant's telephone number, including area code: 212-761-2520

                                 Not Applicable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)

<PAGE>

Item 7.  Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits

Exhibit 4.1       Trust Agreement

Exhibit 5.1       Validity Opinion of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton

Exhibit 23.1      Consent of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton (included in
                  Exhibit 5.1)

<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES

         Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereto duly authorized.

Date: August 1, 2003

                                                     MS STRUCTURED ASSET CORP.
                                                     (Registrant)


                                                     By: /s/ John Kehoe
                                                         ----------------------
                                                     Name:  John Kehoe
                                                     Title: Vice President

<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit 4.1       Trust Agreement

Exhibit 5.1       Validity Opinion of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton

Exhibit 23.1      Consent of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton (included in
                  Exhibit 5.1)
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00473-CV

GILBERTO FRIAS APPELLANT

V.

W.F. FULLER & COMPANY 

INVESTMENTS, INC.

APPELLEE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered “Appellant's Motion To Dismiss Appeal.” It is the 

court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution 

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ. 

DELIVERED: March 21, 2013

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
§ 238.4 Policy. It is DoD policy that: ( a ) DoD assistance may be provided to an entertainment media production, to include fictional portrayals, when cooperation of the producers with the Department of Defense benefits the Department of Defense, or when such cooperation would be in the best interest of the Nation based on whether the production: ( 1 ) Presents a reasonably realistic depiction of the Military Services and the Department of Defense, including Service members, civilian personnel, events, missions, assets, and policies;
( 2 ) Is informational and considered likely to contribute to public understanding of the Military Services and the Department of Defense; or
( 3 ) May benefit Military Service recruiting and retention programs.
( b ) DoD assistance to an entertainment-oriented media production will not deviate from established DoD safety and environmental standards, nor will it impair the operational readiness of the Military Services. Diversion of equipment, personnel, and material resources will be kept to a minimum.
( c ) The production company will reimburse the Government for any expenses incurred as a result of DoD assistance rendered in accordance with the procedures in this part.
( d ) Official activities of Service personnel in assisting the production; use of official DoD property, facilities, and material; and employment of Service members in an off-duty, non-official status will be in accordance with the procedures in this part.
( e ) Footage shot with DoD assistance and official DoD footage released for a specific production will not be reused for or sold to other productions without Department of Defense approval.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                              1,000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                      421
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            18,791
<ALLOWANCES>                                777
<INVENTORY>                              17,610
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         45,783
<PP&E>                                   17,169
<DEPRECIATION>                           12,561
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           60,319
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    19,905
<BONDS>                                       0
<COMMON>                                  2,346
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                               20,715
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             60,319
<SALES>                                  26,213
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         26,213
<CGS>                                    19,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            19,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          4,996
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          242
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           1,275
<INCOME-TAX>                                442
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         833
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                833
<EPS-BASIC>                              0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.14



</TABLE>
### §100752. Destruction of animals and plant life

The Secretary may provide for the destruction of such animals and plant life as may be detrimental to the use of any System unit.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3111.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 100752 | 16 U.S.C. 3 (3d sentence). | Aug. 25, 1916, ch. 408, §3 (3d sentence), 39 Stat. 535. |

Section
1

WR-83,996-01

 § IN THE COURT OF

 § 

IN RE § 

SYLVIA MARTINEZ § CRIMINAL APPEALS 

 § 

 § AUSTIN, TEXAS 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW ORIGINAL PROCEEDING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL 

APPEALS: 

NOW COMES the Bexar County District Attorney’s office and files this 

motion to withdraw the State’s original proceeding petition for writ of mandamus 

and in support thereof would respectfully show the Court as follows: 

The underlying case of State of Texas v. Sylvia Martinez, Cause Number 

2014CR1384, from the 187th District Court of Bexar County was dismissed for 

further investigation on October 5, 2015. The undersigned counsel did not receive 

notice of the dismissal until after filing the original proceeding documents pursuant 

to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 72. Since the underlying criminal case no 

longer exists, the State respectfully moves to withdraw the original proceeding 

filings for In re Sylvia Martinez. 

WR-83,996-01

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 10/21/2015 2:50:35 PM

Accepted 10/21/2015 3:55:37 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

 RECEIVED COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 10/21/2015 ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK 
2

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Bexar County 

Criminal District Attorney’s Office requests that this Court allow the State to 

withdraw its motion for leave to file an original petition for writ of mandamus. 

Respectfully submitted,

NICHOLAS “NICO” LAHOOD

Criminal District Attorney

Bexar County, Texas

/S/ LAUREN SCOTT

___________________________

Lauren A. Scott

Assistant District Attorney

State Bar No. 24066843

101 W. Nueva

San Antonio, Texas 78205

210-335-2885

Email: lscott@bexar.org

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument 

has been served on the counsel of record by electronic mail on October 21, 2015.

Chad P. Van Brunt

State Bar No. 24070784

Angela Moore

State Bar No. 14320110

310 S. St. Mary’s Street, Suite 1830

San Antonio, Texas 78205

/s/ Lauren A. Scott

______________________________

Lauren A. Scott
### §4305. Regulations

The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe regulations to carry out the purpose of this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 441; Pub. L. 95–454, title II, §203(a), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1134.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 2006. | Sept. 30, 1950, ch. 1123, §7, 64 Stat. 1099. |

Statutes at Large

In subsection (c), the words "as a matter of right" are omitted as unnecessary.

In subsection (d), the words "are entitled" are substituted for "shall be afforded an opportunity". The word "considers" is substituted for "deems to be".

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1978—Pub. L. 95–454 substituted "Regulations" for "Review of ratings" in section catchline and in text substituted provisions relating to regulations to carry out this subchapter, for provisions relating to review of ratings.

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

#### Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–454 effective 90 days after Oct. 13, 1978, see section 907 of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.
#### Carl H. Elshoff, appellant, v. Thomas F. Murray et al., appellees.

Gen. No. 7,762.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. Frank W. Burton, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1924. Appeal dismissed for reasons stated in *Elshoff v. Murray,*235 Ill. App. 488.

Opinion filed March 6, 1925.

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

John G. Priedmeyer, Winston, Strawn *&*Shaw and A. M. Fitzgerald, for appellant.

Soelke & Johnson and George W. Kenney, for appellees.

Mr. Presiding Justice Shurtleff

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leslie Direl Green, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant: (1) from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County, rendered March 20, 1959, after a jury trial, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, burglary in the third degree, and petit larceny; and (2) from the sentences imposed. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Appeal from sentences dismissed. No separate appeal lies from the sentences which have been reviewed on the appeal from the judgment of conviction. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.4

                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This  agreement  is  between  Barrington  L.  Simon,  CEO,   representing  Light
Management  Group,  Inc.  (LMGI) and Donald J. Iwacha  regarding the position of
President of LMGI.

For the compensation  detailed below, Donald J. Iwacha will be President of LMGI
with particular  responsibilities  for managing the operational aspects of LMGI.
In  addition,  participation  in the  management  of public  aspects  of LMGI is
included. Donald J. Iwacha will report to Barrington L. Simon.

The compensation particulars of the agreement are as follows:

1.      The starting salary will be $110,000.00 Cdn per year. The salary will be
        increased  to  $135,000.00  Cdn per year on January 1, 2000.  The salary
        will be increased to $160,000.00 Cdn on July 1, 2000.  Subsequent salary
        reviews will take place,  at a minimum,  on the  employment  anniversary
        date, July 19th.

2.      Twenty  thousand  (20,000)  shares of LMGI stock will be provided on the
        employment starting date July 19, 1999, as well as a stock option valued
        at two times (2X) annual  salary,  at a price  point of  $US2.00.  Stock
        options  valued as above will be  offered  every  subsequent  employment
        anniversary date with the price point effective at the close of business
        on the respective anniversary date.

3.      Benefits, pension and annual incentive / bonus will be developed as part
        of the  company  infrastructure  which will be built  within the next 12
        months.

4.      Paid vacation  entitlement will be 4 weeks in the first three (3) years.
        In succeeding years, the entitlement will be five (5) weeks. There shall
        be a maximum carry-over of five (5) days in any given year.

5.      A Company car will be  provided,  with a turn over every two years.  The
        level/value  of  the  car  shall  reflect  the  position  of  President.
        Insurance, maintenance and gasoline costs will be paid by LMGI.

6.      Normal business expenses, such as travel, meals and entertainment,  etc.
        will be paid by LMGI. Expense reports, with receipts,  will be submitted
        weekly/monthly as required.

7.      Other items required to conduct  business to the level that is required,
        such as a cellular phone, laptop computer (or suitable alternate),  etc.
        will be provided by LMGI.

8.      Performance reviews will be held at least once per year.

Dated July 19, 1999.


        /s/ Barrington L. Simon             /s/ Donald J. Iwacha
        -------------------------           ----------------------------
        Barrington L. Simon, CEO            Donald J. Iwacha


                                       10
#### § 203.19 Appeals process.

DoD Components will establish an appeals process to settle potential disputes between the Department of Defense and the public regarding certain decisions arising out of the TAPP process. The Department of Defense recognizes that the RAB/TRC may disagree with the findings of the installation commander that a proposed TAPP project is ineligible, either because of the availability of alternate sources of assistance or because the project does not meet the eligibility criteria established in this part. It is in the best interests of the Department of Defense and the community members of RABs and TRCs to anticipate and avoid disputes and to work cooperatively to resolve potential differences of opinion. However, in certain circumstances, the RAB/TRC community members may feel that their needs were not adequately served by the decisions of the Department of Defense. In this instance, the hierarchical structure and chain-of-command within each DoD Component will serve as the avenue for appeal. Appeals will be considered within the chain-of-command, and, in general, will be resolved at the lowest level possible. The highest level of appeal will be at the DoD Component Deputy Assistant Secretary level with authority over the DERP and BRAC environmental programs. Inherently governmental functions, such as the procurement process governed by the FAR, are not subject to appeal.