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

<ARTICLE>                       5
<MULTIPLIER>                    1000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               OCT-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                  NOV-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                    OCT-31-1995
<CASH>                            12
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                   1599
<ALLOWANCES>                      65
<INVENTORY>                     1696
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                3325
<PP&E>                          1910
<DEPRECIATION>                  1410
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  4122
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           3924
<BONDS>                            0
<COMMON>                          24
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                       174
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    4122
<SALES>                         7755
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                7755
<CGS>                           4732
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   9050
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 (2)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                98
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (6127)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                0
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                   (6127)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                  (4.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                  (4.20)

</TABLE>
§ 1217.43 Removal and vacancies. ( a ) In the event that any member or alternate of the Board ceases to work for or be affiliated with the domestic manufacturer or importer, or ceases to do business in the group or region from which the member or alternate was appointed to the Board, such position shall automatically become vacant.
( b ) The Board may recommend to the Secretary that a member or alternate be removed from office if the member or alternate consistently refuses to perform his or her duties or engages in dishonest acts or willful misconduct. The Secretary may remove the member or alternate if he or she finds that the Board's recommendation shows adequate cause. Further, without recommendation of the Board, a member or alternate may be removed by the Secretary upon showing of adequate cause, including the failure by a member or alternate to submit reports or remit assessments required under this part, if the Secretary determines that such member's or alternate's continued service would be detrimental to the achievement of the purposes of the Act.
( c ) If a position becomes vacant, nominations to fill the vacancy may be conducted using the nominations process set forth in § 1217.41 or the Board may nominate eligible persons. A vacancy will not be required to be filled if the unexpired term is less than 6 months.
[89 FR 58251, July 18, 2024]
#### §§ 1755.523-1755.699 [Reserved]
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. James Watson, Appellant, v James J. Walsh, as Superintendent of Sullivan Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[776 NYS2d 352]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered June 3, 2003 in Sullivan County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

Petitioner commenced this habeas corpus proceeding challenging the failure to allow him to testify on his own behalf at a September 1984 grand jury proceeding. Supreme Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction, and this appeal ensued.

The record establishes, and petitioner acknowledges, that he failed to comply with the terms of the writ of habeas corpus directing that service of the writ and petition be made upon respondent. Absent a showing that imprisonment presented an obstacle beyond petitioner’s control that prevented his compliance with the service directives *(see People ex rel. Planter v McCoy,*1 AD3d 1012 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 508 [2004]; *Matter of Britt v Goord,*305 AD2d 829 [2003]), Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction. Although petitioner requests that this Court remit the matter to Supreme Court in order for the error to be corrected and a new writ of habeas corpus issued, unlike the cases relied on by petitioner, the error here occurred due to petitioner’s own negligence and not through any misdirection from the court *(cf. Matter of Standifer v Goord,*285 AD2d 912 [2001]; *Matter of Taylor v Poole,*285 AD2d 769 [2001]).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ, concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
#### § 1717.902 Other RUS requirements.

Supplemental loans required by 7 CFR 1710.110 are subject to the same post-loan requirements as insured RUS loans regarding accepted materials, construction standards, contracting and procurement procedures, standard forms of contracts, RUS approval of the advance of loan funds, and other matters.
##### 



Exhibit 32.0
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    to my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: August 16, 2005
    /s/                                
    William N. FryWilliam N. FryPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: August 16, 2005
    /s/                                
    Jeffrey L. GreggJeffrey L. GreggExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1930 

To prohibit the manufacture, marketing, sale, or shipment in interstate 

commerce of products designed to assist in defrauding a drug test. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2013 

Mr. ENGEL (for himself and Mr. TERRY) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the manufacture, marketing, sale, or shipment 

in interstate commerce of products designed to assist 

in defrauding a drug test. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Drug Testing Integrity 

5 Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BAN OF PRODUCTS DESIGNED TO DEFRAUD DRUG 

7 TESTS. 

8 (a) CONDUCT PROHIBITED.—It shall be unlawful to 

9 knowingly manufacture, market, sell, ship, or otherwise 

10 provide to another individual any product with the intent 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1930 IH

1 to assist such other individual to use such product to de2 fraud a drug test. 

3 (b) DEFINITION.—As used in this Act, the term ‘‘de4 fraud a drug test’’ means— 

5 (1) submit a substance that purports to be from 

6 an individual other than its actual source, or pur7 ports to have been excreted or collected other than 

8 when it was actually excreted or collected; or 

9 (2) engage in any other conduct with the intent 

10 to produce a false or misleading outcome of a test 

11 for the presence of a controlled substance. 

12 SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMIS13 SION. 

14 (a) UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE ACT OR PRACTICE.— 

15 A violation of section 2 shall be treated as a violation of 

16 a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice pre17 scribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade 

18 Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). 

19 (b) ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY.—The Federal 

20 Trade Commission shall enforce this Act in the same man21 ner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction 

22 as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Fed23 eral Trade Commission Act were incorporated into and 

24 made a part of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Susan E. Alderton
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                                               212.421.7202


                                                               EXHIBIT 99.1








FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE



                    NL INDUSTRIES, INC. HAS NEW CONTROLLER



HOUSTON,  TEXAS -- March 17, 1999 -- NL Industries,  Inc.  (NYSE:  NL) announced
today that it has appointed Robert D. Hardy as Vice President,  Controller of NL
Industries.  Mr. Hardy,  who has been with NL since 1993,  also will continue to
oversee the Company's tax affairs.

Susan E. Alderton,  Chief  Financial  Officer of NL Industries said "Robert is a
proven executive with a thorough understanding of NL's operations.  He will be a
great asset to the Company and our management team in his new position."

NL  Industries,  Inc. is a major  international  producer  of  titanium  dioxide
pigments.


                                  # # # # #
#### § 1777.3 Objective.

The objective of the Section 306C Water and Waste Facility Loans and Grants to Alleviate Health Risks program is to provide water and waste disposal facilities and services to low-income rural areas whose residents are experiencing a significant health risk due to the fact that a significant proportion of the community's residents do not have access to, or are not served by, adequate affordable water supply systems or waste disposal facilities.
NO.  07-01-0291-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL E

	DECEMBER 10, 2002

	______________________________

	AIR LIQUIDE AMERICA CORPORATION, APPELLANT

	V.

	COASTAL REFINING AND MARKETING, INC., APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 152ND DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY;

	NO. 1999-10944; HONORABLE HARVEY BROWN, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.  and BOYD, SJ.*

	In this proceeding, appellant Air Liquide America Corporation appealed a judgment in favor of appellee Coastal Refining and Marketing, Inc.  Appellee filed a cross-appeal.

	However, the parties have now filed a motion in which they certify that they have settled and compromised all claims and controversies between them and neither of them desire to pursue their appeal.  The motion is in proper form and is filed before this court has rendered any opinion in the case.

	Accordingly, the parties’ motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).  Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

							John T. Boyd

							Senior Justice

Do not publish.
#### § 1775.22 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1924

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1924 appear at 80 FR 9870, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1924.50 OMB control number.

The reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in this regulation have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB control number 0575-0042. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to vary from 5 minutes to 4 hours per response, with an average of 37 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to U.S. Department of Agriculture, Clearance Officer, OIRM, AG Box 7630, Washington, DC 20250; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (OMB #0575-0042), Washington, DC 20503.

[59 FR 6885, Feb. 14, 1994]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsIndependent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Analysis of the nose wheel steering subsystemThe results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA approach features a top-down analysis of the hardware to determine failure modes, criticality, and potential critical items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. The independent analysis results for the Orbiter Nose Wheel Steering (NWS) hardware are documented. The NWS hardware provides primary directional control for the Orbiter vehicle during landing rollout. Each level of hardware was evaluated and analyzed for possible failure modes and effects. Criticality was assigned based upon the severity of the effect for each failure mode. The original NWS design was envisioned as a backup system to differential braking for directional control of the Orbiter during landing rollout. No real effort was made to design the NWS system as fail operational. The brakes have much redundancy built into their design but the poor brake/tire performance has forced the NSTS to upgrade NWS to the primary mode of directional control during rollout. As a result, a large percentage of the NWS system components have become Potential Critical Items (PCI).Document ID19900001605Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsMediavilla, Anthony Scott*(McDonnell-Douglas Astronautics Co. Houston, TX, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateNovember 21, 1986Subject CategorySpace TransportationReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-185548NAS 1.26:185548REPT-1.0-WP-VA86001-03Accession Number90N10921Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS9-17650Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900001605.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
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT GARY CARROLL, DOC #805289 ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-4573 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed February 21, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Sharon M. Franklin, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Christopher E. Cosden, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Andrew Tetreault, Assistant Attorney General, and Elba Caridad Martin-Schomaker, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, CRENSHAW, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7180

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RODERICK LAMAR WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, Senior District Judge. (5:03-cr-00004-RLV-DSC-8; 

5:16-cv-00132-RLV)

Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 28, 2017

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roderick Lamar Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roderick Lamar Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief 

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 

would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or 

wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that 

the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

** PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

** AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

** SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

I,William F. Weissman, Chief Financial Officer of Kanbay International, Inc.(the “Company”), hereby certify that:

(1)             TheCompany’s annual report on Form 10-K, as amended, for the period endedDecember 31, 2005 (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)             The informationcontained in the Form 10-K, as amended, fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company forthe periods presented therein.
| /s/ WILLIAM F. WEISSMAN     |     |
|-----------------------------|----------|
| *Chief Financial Officer*** | * * |
| September 22, 2006          |     |

 

----
#### Clement Bhola, Appellant-Respondent, v Shirley Krivisky, Respondent-Appellant.

[776 NYS2d 896]

In an action, inter alia, to recover on two promissory notes, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the *744Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated June 19, 2003, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment on the first and second causes of action, and the defendant cross-appeals from the same order.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of the court *(see*22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent-appellant.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment. There are issues of fact warranting a trial *(see*CPLR 3212 [b]; *Perez v Gerardi,*285 AD2d 454 [2001]; *Camaro v AVR Realty Co.,*259 AD2d 723 [1999]). Smith, J.P., H. Miller, S. Miller and Luciano, JJ., concur.
2006-0620.

#### State v. Fisher.

Franklin App. No. 01AP-614, 2001-Ohio-8772. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
# • RCRA REVISIOO CHB:J<LIST 27 LIABILITY CC7JER/GE 

### 51 FR 25350 JUlyll, 1986 FEDt::RAL RWUIR£l1E_m'

__ CITE SI'A'lUrE**RmUlATIa~** IF OlFfl::RUlI' 

### FRCM FEDERAL . RWJIREMEm', EXPUUN PART 264 - SI'ANIY\RC6 FOR AND OPERA1URS OF TDF' 

### s SUBPARI H - FINANCIAL**REXXJ~** 

### t LIABILITY REOJIREMENI'S


# • Coverage for su:iden 264.147(a) 

### 173-303-045 accidental occurrences (2) 

## '7, ,1'\') c.')l'\/o\( ... \ Use 

### of multiple 264.147( a ) \ 

### 173-303-045 financial nedlanisms (3) 17,**1n1~?n(Q\f::l'** 

### Coverage for nonsu:iden 264.147(:'} 

### ·'73- 303-045 accidental occurrences (2) '71_{f){_k?f)(A\'h\ 

### Use of nultiple 264. 147 ( b ) 

### financial 

### mechanisms (3 ) M ... ... , wO 

### Corporate guarantee for 

### 173-303-620(8)(a) liability cx>veraae 264.147(0)**17'_~n1_h/n(R)tb)** 

### Guarantor is parent; 264.147(3) I

# I .•. corporat.i.on 

### (1) I""j 1 1_ to 264.147(,;) f:; .. "0 Payment. by 

### quararrtor (1)(1) 

### l\,) i I........ 

### Cancellation/use of 264.147 (3) 

### ditto alternate coverage (1)(11)


### - Coqx:>ratc guarant.ee Jee ::'ttorney 

### , valid 

### arrl enforceable 264. l .. P ( ) Cenera.l t s certi fi- 

### I**;:3~.,O~·** 2'.:"," :-j 

### under State law (2 ) 

# I -..**~~** 

## I

__ .::::: "

__ '''; if !

# r--- 

# I Letter 

### fram Ch1ef 

## I ',73-303-620(10) Financial Officer 264. 151 (g) 

### +- +-

_ Cor.porate Guarantee 

### for 264.1 Sl (h) 

### Liability Coverage (2) 

### 173-303-620(10)


# •• July 11, :986 - Page 1 

### of 2

# •

•

• REVISlOO otEO<LIST 27: LIABILI1Y (CClltiooed)**R~** 

## errs STATE AlJIH)RI'N IF**DIFFERr-~** FfOo1 FEDER.:":" STA'lVl'E RmUIATICN REOOlREMENr, EXPlAIN PART 265 - INl'ER.IM**sr~** FOR AND OPEAAroRS OF TSDF I s SlBPARr H - FINT\NCIAL RWUIRl:MENI'S LIABILI'IY RmUIRFMENIS COIierage of sooden 265.l47(a) 

### 173-303-045 accidental cccureoces (2 ) 

### 173-303-400J3) Use of nultiple 265.l47(a) financial nechanisms (3) 

### ditto COverage for I'XXlSl.X3den 265.l47(b) accidental occurrence (2) 

### ditto USe of roult iple 265.l47(b) financial mechanisms (3) 

### ditto



## - Corporate guarantee for liabilty ooverage 265.147(g) 

### ditto QJarantor is parent 265.147(9 ) oorporation (l) 

### di tto 265.147(9) Payment by**~~trantor** (1)(i) 

### ditto cancellationuse of 265.147(g) alternate coverage (l)(ii) 

### ditto COrp:>t"C1te guarantee 

### ditto valid and eneorceable 26S.147(3) urrler State lcrw 1(2) 

# _.

# __ .-

July 11, 1986 - Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 185 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 185

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the United States courthouse located at 101 East Pecan 
      Street in Sherman, Texas, as the ``Paul Brown United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 101 East Pecan Street in 
Sherman, Texas, shall be known and designated as the ``Paul Brown 
United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Paul Brown 
United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 22, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 185

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To designate the United States courthouse located at 101 East Pecan 
      Street in Sherman, Texas, as the ``Paul Brown United States 
                             Courthouse''.
```