alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2478 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2478

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Tetraethylthiuram Disulfide.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 29, 2006

  Mr. DeWine (for himself and Mr. Voinovich) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on Tetraethylthiuram Disulfide.

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

SECTION 1. TETRAETHYLTHIURAM DISULFIDE.

    (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:

``      9902.09.03       Tetraethylthiuram  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Disulfide (CAS                                                     31/2009
                         No. 97-77-8)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2930.30.60)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 15

- 00118

- CV

Shirley ADAMS , Charlene Burgess, Willie Mae Herbst Jasik, William Albert Herbst, Helen Herbst, and R. May Oil & Gas Company, Ltd., Appellants

v.

MURPHY EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION CO.

- USA , a Delaware Corporation, Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13

- 05

- 0466

- CVA Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accord ance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment, including any award of attorney’s fees, is REVERSED. This cause is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

We ORDER that appellants Shirley Adams , Charlene Burgess, Willie Mae Herbst Jasik, William Albert Herbst, Helen Herbst, and R. May Oil & Gas Company, Ltd., recover their costs of court for this appeal from appellee Murphy Exploration & Production Co.

- USA.

SIGNED June 15, 2016.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
#### § 4284.502 Policy.

Rural cooperative development grants will be used to facilitate the creation or retention of jobs in rural areas through the development of new rural cooperatives, Value-Added processing and rural businesses.
Unassociated Document


    
      EXHIBIT
10.2

    

     

    No:
C-B-07

    


    


    Hangzhou
Bank Co. Ltd.

    


    Financing
Guarantee Letter

    


    


    


    To:
Shenzhen Branch, Hangzhou Bank Co. Ltd.

    


    I am
willing to provide the debtor Shenzhen SCM Shenzhen Ltd., which signs the
Comprehensive Financing Line Contract (No. 2009SC000000841 ) with irrevocable
jointly and severally guarantee liabilities.

    


    Guarantee
validity: since the starting day of the obligation performance of the principal
contract till 2 years after the expiration date.

    


    Security
range: RMB43,750,000.00 (including bill discounts, acceptance, guarantee,
advance for L/C), interest (including compound interest) and penalty rate,
penalty, compensation and all the notary, evaluation, auction, litigation, legal
expenses occurred in order to recall the creditor rights.

    


    I
recognize and accept the validity of the Comprehensive Financing Line Contract
and this Financing Guarantee Letter, and commit to carry it out conscientiously.
In case of other guarantee or warranty of the principal claim guaranteed besides
that agreed in this Financing Guarantee Letter, it shall not influence any of
your rights and its fulfillment under this Financing Guarantee Letter, and I
shall not raise a plea against you on this basis.

    


    


    


    


    ID
number:__________________________

    


    Address:___________________________

    


    Telephone
No.: ______________________

    


    Postal
Code: ________________________

    


    


    


    


    


    


    


    


    Guarantor
(chop): Lei Xia

    /s/Lei
Xia

    


    April
2009
§ 4280.317 Selection of applications for funding. All eligible applications received will be scored using the scoring criteria specified in § 4280.316 and funded in descending order from the highest total score to applications receiving 60 points, subject to the authorization of appropriations for the Federal FY. If two or more applications have the same score and available funds cannot fund the individual projects, the Administrator may prioritize such applications to help the program achieve overall geographic diversity. ( a ) *Timing and submission of applications.* ( 1 ) All applications must be submitted as a complete application in one package of materials. Packages must be in the order of appearance in § 4280.315. Applications that are disorganized or otherwise not ready for evaluation will be returned to the applicant and not considered for funding.
( 2 ) Applications will be accepted on a continuing basis at any Rural Development State Office and will compete nationally for available funds on a quarterly basis using Federal fiscal quarters.
( 3 ) Applications received will be reviewed, scored, and ranked quarterly. Unless withdrawn by the applicant, the Agency will retain unsuccessful applications that score 60 points or more for consideration in subsequent reviews, through a total of four quarterly reviews. Applications unsuccessful after competing for funds in four quarters will be returned to the applicant.
( b ) *Availability of funds.* If an Application is received, scored, and ranked, but insufficient funds remain to fully fund the project, the Agency may elect to fund an Application requesting a smaller amount that has a lower score. Before this occurs, the Agency, as applicable, will provide the higher scoring applicant the opportunity to reduce the amount of its request to the amount of funds available. If the applicant agrees to lower its request, it must certify that the purposes of the project can be met, and the project is financially feasible at the lower amount.
( c ) *Applicant notification.* The Agency will notify applicants regarding their selection or non-selection, provide appeal rights of unsuccessful applicants, and provide closing procedures for the loan and/or grant awardees.
( d ) *Closing.* Awardees unable to complete closing for an approved obligation within 90 days or an extended date approved by the Agency will forfeit their funding award in accordance with § 4280.311(e)(9).
#### Niki Yioves, Appellant, v T.J. Maxx, Inc., Respondent.

[815 NYS2d 119]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), entered September 13, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a puddle of a liquid substance by the lotion/liquid soap section of a store owned by the defendant. For about 20 to 25 minutes before the accident, the plaintiff browsed around in the adjacent sportswear section, about seven feet away from the accident site. She did not see anyone in either the sportswear or the lotion/liquid soap section while she was browsing, and did not see anything on the floor before the accident. After the accident, she noticed that the foreign substance on the floor was about four feet long and two feet wide. The defendant’s employees testified about the store’s general inspection/clean up policy. However, neither of the employees testified as to whether the procedure was followed that day.

A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it *(see Joachim v 1824 Church Ave., Inc.,*12 AD3d 409 [2004]; *Stumacher v Waldbaum, Inc.,*274 AD2d 572 [2000]; *Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc.,*248 AD2d *573436 [1998]). Only after the movant has satisfied this threshold burden will the court examine the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851 [1985]; *Joachim v 1824 Church Ave., supra).*

Here, the defendant did not satisfy its initial burden. The defendant failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish that the alleged puddle at issue was not visible and apparent *(cf. Cantalupo v Anthony’s Water Café,*281 AD2d 382 [2001]). The defendant also failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish when the area in question was last inspected or cleaned on the day of the plaintiffs accident *(see Britto v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc.,*21 AD3d 436 [2005]; *Beltran v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,*259 AD2d 456 [1999]; *Mancini v Quality Mkts.,*256 AD2d 1177 [1998]; *Van Steenburg v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co.,*235 AD2d 1001 [1997]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Adams, J.P., Mastro, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

March 23, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00811

- CV

Yvonne SALAZAR

- HERNANDEZ and Tony Hernandez

,

Appellants

v.

CHAMPION HOMES AT MISSION DEL RIO

,

Appellee

From the County Court a t Law No. 10, Bexar County, Te xas

Trial Court No. 2019CV07914 Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The trial court’s judgment was signed on November 7, 2019 , and a ppellant s timely filed a notice of appeal. The reporter’s record was filed on November 20, 2019 and t he clerk’s record was filed on November 25, 2019

. Therefore, a ppellant s ’ brief was originally due to be filed on December 27, 2019 . Neither the brief nor a motion for extension was filed. On January 30, 2020

, the clerk of this court notified appellant that the appellant s ’ brief was late and that either the brief or a motion for extension of time to file the brief should be filed within ten days , i.e., by February 10 , 2020

. To date, n either the appellant’s brief nor a motion for extension of time has been filed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.5(b).

It is ther efore ORDERED that appellant s show cause in writing within ten (1 0 ) days from the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a).

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Just ice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 23rd day of March, 2020

.___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz , C lerk of Court
Exhibit
32.1



CERTIFICATION
FURNISHED PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



This
certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and accompanies the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2020 of NanoVibronix, Inc. (the “Company”).
I, Brian Murphy, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that, based on my knowledge:



(1)
The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)
The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company as of and for the periods covered in this report.



|Date:
    August 19, 2020 | By: | /s/
    Brian Murphy             
|------------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------
|                          |     | Brian
    Murphy                 
|                          |     | Chief
    Executive Officer      
|                          |     | (Principal
    Executive Officer)
#### § 3430.1010 Review criteria.

Panel reviewers conducting merit reviews on proposals submitted by the Centers will be instructed to ensure that proposals adequately address the plan developed in accordance with § 3430.1007 for consideration of the relevance and merit of proposals.
Editorial Note on Part 4290
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

§ 4290.3030 Financing of Enterprises by RBICs. ( a ) *Non-compliance with this section.* The last sentence of § 4290.700(e) does not apply to Non-leveraged RBICs.
( b ) *Enterprises that may be ineligible for Financing.* The provisions associated with real estate enterprises found in § 4290.720(c) apply to Non-leveraged RBICs unless the Non-leveraged RBIC requests, and has received, an irrevocable exemption from the Agency in accordance with § 4290.1920.
( c ) *Farmland purchases.* The provisions associated with farmland purchases found in § 4290.720(e) apply to Non-leveraged RBICs unless the Non-leveraged RBIC requests, and has received, an irrevocable exemption from the Agency in accordance with § 4290.1920.
( d ) *Purchasing securities from an underwriter or other third party.* Non-leveraged RBICs are exempt from the recordkeeping requirements and fee limitations in § 4290.825(b) and (c), respectively, for securities purchased through or from an underwriter.
( e ) *Assets acquired in liquidation of Portfolio securities.* The provisions of § 4290.880 do not apply to Non-leveraged RBICs.
10.000 Scope of part.       This part prescribes policies and procedures for conducting market research to arrive at the most suitable approach to acquiring, distributing, and supporting supplies and services. This part implements the requirements of 41 U.S.C. 3306(a)(1), 41 U.S. C. 3307,                 10 U.S.C. 3453, and 6 U. S.C. 796.    **Parent topic:** Part 10 - Market Research
118 STAT. 2246 PUBLIC LAW 108–393—OCT. 30, 2004

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4471 (S. 2571):

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108–550 (Comm. on Financial Services).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

June 21, considered and passed House.

Oct. 11, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–393

108th Congress

An Act

To clarify the loan guarantee authority under title VI of the Native American

Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homeownership Opportunities

for Native Americans Act of 2004’’.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL GUARANTEES FOR FINANCING FOR TRIBAL HOUSING

ACTIVITIES.

Section 601 of the Native American Housing Assistance and

Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4191) is amended by

adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘‘(d) LIMITATION ON PERCENTAGE.—A guarantee made under

this title shall guarantee repayment of 95 percent of the unpaid

principal and interest due on the notes or other obligations guaranteed.’’.

Approved October 30, 2004.

Homeownership

Opportunities

for Native

Americans Act

of 2004.

25 USC 4101

note.

Oct. 30, 2004

[H.R. 4471]
#### RAISNER, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 15, 1906.)

Action by Margaret Raisner against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. C. F. Brown, for appellant. E. L. Crandall, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
#### Richland County Bar Association *v.*Akers.

[Cite as *Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Akers,*109 Ohio St.3d 1214, 2006-Ohio-2707.]

(No. 2005-0382

Submitted May 17, 2006

Decided May 22, 2006.)

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Eric J. Akers, Attorney Registration No. 0019706, last known business address in Ashland, Ohio.

*1215{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of October 12, 2005, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of eighteen months with twelve months stayed on condition, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A). Therefore,

{¶ 3} IT IS ORDERED by this court that respondent be, and hereby is, reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio.

{¶ 4} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of publication.

{¶ 5} For earlier case, see *Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Akers,*106 Ohio St.3d 337, 2005-Ohio-5144, 835 N.E.2d 29.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsReports of planetary geology and geophysics program, 1988This is a compilation of abstracts of reports from Principal Investigators of NASA's Planetary Geology and Geophysics Program, Office of Space Science and Applications. The purpose is to document in summary form research work conducted in this program during 1988. Each report reflects significant accomplishments within the area of the author's funded grant or contract.Document ID19900003138Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsHolt, Henry E.*(NASA Headquarters Washington, DC United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1989Subject CategoryLunar And Planetary ExplorationReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:4130NASA-TM-4130Accession Number90N12454Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900003138.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
16.105 Solicitation provision.

The contracting officer shall complete and insert the provision at 52.216-1, Type of Contract, in a

solicitation unless it is for-

(a) A fixed-price acquisition made under simplified acquisition procedures; or

(b) Information or planning purposes.

Parent topic: Subpart 16.1 - Selecting Contract Types
(86 Misc. Rep. 364)

#### In re ROTHSCHILD’S ESTATE.

(Surrogate’s Court, New York County.

June 23, 1914.)

*(Syllabus by the Court.)*

Taxation (§ 867*)—Transfer Tax—Domicile of Decedent—Evidence.

The principle of domicile controls the determination of the last domicile of a decedent, and allegations or admissions of personal representatives are'not to be considered, as it is beyond their power to concede away a status of the deceased.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. s§ 1681-1684: Dec. Dig. § 867.*]

In the matter of the transfer tax on the estate of Charles A. Rothschild. Report of appraiser remitted for further report.

Guggenheimer, Untermyer & Marshall, of New York City, for executors.

Thomas E. Rush, of New York City, for State Comptroller.

*

For other cases see same topic *&*§ number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

FOWLER, S.

The executor of decedent’s estate and the comptroller of the state by their attorneys have filed a stipulation consenting that the surrogate determine the issue of the decedent’s last domicile upon the proofs taken before the transfer tax appraiser. The evidence before the transfer tax appraiser conclusively shows to my mind that the domicile of the late Charles A. Rothschild at the time of his death was in France. His household and household effects were maintained in France continuously since the year 1905, when he abandoned his prior domicile in New York sine animo revertendi. Since 1905 Mr. Rothschild lived only in France. Both the animus and the factum elements of a domicile in France are amply established in this instance by uncontradicted testimony. The fact that the attorney or even the executor was under a misapprehension at an earlier stage concerning Mr. Rothschild’s last domicile is of no consequence. The principle of a decedent’s domicile is not affected by estoppels against others, nor are the allegations of personal representatives conclusive on an issue of last domicile of their testator. Matter of Grant, 83 Misc. Rep. 257, 260, 144 N. Y. Supp. 567.

I find that decedent was last domiciled in France, and that an order should be entered remitting the report herein to the appraiser for further report by him in accord with this decision.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Bernhardt Peguese, Appellant, v. Edward M. Fay, as Warden of Green Haven Prison, Respondent.

Motion by appellant to amend remittitur granted to the following extent: *942by adding to the decision and order, [27 A D 2d 802], both dated February 20, 1967, the following: “Upon the appeal herein, appellant contended that he was denied due process of law, a fair trial and equal protection of the laws under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and Article one, sections 6 and 11 of the Constitution of the State of New York. This court held that appellant’s constitutional rights were not violated.” Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.