alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1040.111 Means available. If there appears to be a failure or threatened failure to comply with any of the provisions of this part, and if the noncompliance or threatened noncompliance cannot be corrected by voluntary means, compliance with this part may be effected by the suspension, termination of, or refusal to grant or to continue Federal financial assistance, or by any other means authorized by law. Such other means may include, but are not limited to: ( a ) Referral to the Department of Justice with a recommendation that appropriate proceedings be brought to enforce any rights of the United States under any law including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, other statutes to which this part applies, or any assurance or other contractual undertaking; and
( b ) Any applicable proceeding under State or local law.
#### Roy *v.*The State.

Lumpkín, J.

1. Where a mother was charged with murder resulting from an assault upon her child, in which the latter was beaten and .stamped, and it appeared that .several persons were present, one of whom assisted the mother in catching the child, it furnishes no ground for reversal that after the trial the evidence of some of these eye-witnesses (including the one who assisted her), who had not been subpoenaed or introduced as witnesses on the trial, was claimed to have been newly dis*224covered, no sufficient reason appearing wliy the accused did not know of such witnesses or could not procure their evidence at the trial.

July 15, 1913.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge- Graham. Bleckley superior court. April 5, 1913.

*James C. Linney*and *A. C. Saffold,*for plaintiff in error.'

*T. S. Felder, attorney-general,*and *W. A. Wooten, solicitor-general,*contra.

2. Where such witnesses made mere general statements in affidavits that they did not apprise the defendant or her counsel before the trial of the facts to which they could testify, for the reason that they “had no opportunity to see defendant after her arrest, or her counsel after counsel had been employed,” and the defendant and her counsel made affidavits in which they stated in general terms that they did not know of such evidence before the trial of the ease, and could not, by the exercise of ordinary diligence have discovered it, without any reason being shown why it could not have been discovered, this did not suffice to explain the failure to obtain such testimony before the, trial or to furnish ground for a new trial.

3. Newly discovered evidence which is only cumulative or impeaching in its character will not ordinarily require a reversal, where the presiding judge has declined to grant a new trial on that ground.

4. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and there was no error in refusing to grant a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
‘68°00’
45°00

NON SNAAWEG

f — = Holiday. . DEPTH {:100,000 4 |
2 ol | “TT. BATHYMETRIC. CONTOUR INTERVAL 10. METERS |
. bs WITH SUPPLEMENTARY 2 METER CONTOURS : :
: - DATUM IS MEAN LOW WATER pre |
= PRELIMINARY

COPY

| . _ STAC HIAS 4% ) SUBJECT TO REVIEW/REVISION

Aiuiaio-sea3 | NOTING, pg ge
|EXHIBIT
      33.3
|------------------



|Management
      Assessment
|---------------------------

Management of ING USA Annuity and Life
Insurance Company (the Company) is responsible for assessing compliance with
applicable servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB of the
Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the servicing of ING USA Global
Funding Trust 3.

The Companys management has assessed the
effectiveness of the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria
as of December 31, 2006 and for the period from January 1, 2006 through December
31, 2006. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by
the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of
Regulation AB.

Based on such assessment, management
believes that, as of December 31, 2006 and for the period from January 1, 2006
through December 31, 2006, the Company has complied in all material respects
with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(3)(i) of Regulation AB of
the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the servicing of the ING USA
Global Funding Trust 3 except as listed below.

The Company filed the required information for one
payment made during 2006 with the SEC on Form 8-K, rather than Form 10-D, as
required under Regulation AB.  The Company filed a Form 10-D at a later
date in order to file the correct form with the SEC.

The Company has determined all other requirements
listed in Item 1122(d) as being inapplicable to the activities it performs with
respect to the asset-backed securities transactions being serviced.

Ernst & Young LLP, a registered public
accounting firm, has issued an attestation report with respect to managements
assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of December
31, 2006 and for the period from January 1, 2006 through December 31,
2006.



| | /s/ Karen CzizikKaren CzizikVice
      PresidentMarch 28,
  2007
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------

---
Subpart 339.1 - General

Parent topic: PART 339 - ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

339.101 Policy

In addition to the regulatory guidance in Federal Acquisition Regulation part 39, contracting officers

shall collaborate with the requiring activity to ensure information technology (IT) acquisitions for

supplies, services, and systems meet the requirements established by the Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS).
Order entered January 11, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00901-CR

PAUL GARY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F20-16883-S

ORDER

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED and 

the brief received January 9, 2023, is ORDERED filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
SECOND AMENDMENT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

By and through the signature of their counsel below, who have the authority to enter into

and bind their respective parties to this amendment, Plaintiff WildEarth Guardians and

Defendant Lisa Jackson, in her official capacity as Administrator of the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), agree that the Settlement Agreement pertaining to

WildEarth Guardians v. Jackson, No. 09-cv-02148-REB-MJW (D. Colo.), (Document No. 22-2

in the Docket), is amended to extend certain deadlines for EPA action as follows:

Item 1 to Exhibit 1, Montana, "Stack Height Rules - 17.8.401-403 Stack Height Rule

revisions," shall have a deadline for proposed action of March 28, 2013, and a deadline for final

action of August 29, 2013;

Item 2 to Exhibit 1, Montana, "Kraft Pulp Mill rule recod. and opacity," shall have a

deadline for final action of June 27, 2013;

Item 5 to Exhibit 1, Utah, "R307-401 Renumbering of NSR rules," shall have a deadline

for proposed action of May 30, 2013, and a deadline for final action of October 31, 2013;

Item 7 to Exhibit 1, Utah, “1-hour ozone maintenance plan,” shall have a deadline for

final action of October 20, 2011;

Item 8 to Exhibit 1, Utah, “Rules reorg. Grouping of smaller materials into a coherent

structure,” shall have a deadline for proposed action of July 31, 2013, and a deadline for final

action of December 20, 2013; 

 Item 9 to Exhibit 1, Utah ,“R307-202-5 Open Burning,” shall have a deadline for

proposed action of December 14, 2011, and a deadline for final action of June 14, 2012;

Item 10 to Exhibit 1, Utah, “Ogden PM10 SIP Clean Air Determination,” shall have a

deadline for proposed action of July 20, 2012, and a deadline for final action of January 17,
2

2013;

Item 12 to Exhibit 1, Utah, “Utah Smoke Management Rules,” shall have a deadline for

proposed action of October 31, 2011, and a deadline for final action of April 30, 2012.

All other terms and deadlines of the Settlement Agreement remain in effect except as

previously extended by written agreement of the parties. 

IGNACIA S. MORENO

Assistant Attorney General

Dated: 6/30/2011 s/David A. Carson 

DAVID A. CARSON

United States Department of Justice

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division

1961 Stout Street - 8th Floor

Denver, Colorado 80294

(303) 844-1349

david.a.carson@usdoj.gov

COUNSEL FOR EPA 

JAMES J. TUTCHTON

WildEarth Guardians

1536 Wynkoop St., Suite 301

Denver, Colorado 80202

(720) 301-3843

jtutchton@wildearthguardians.org

Dated: 6/20/2011 s/Robert Ukeiley 

ROBERT UKEILEY

Law Office of Robert Ukeiley

435R Chestnut Street, Suite 1

Berea, Kentucky 40403

(859) 986-5402

rukeiley@igc.org

COUNSEL FOR WILDEARTH 

GUARDIANS
#### In the Matter of Harry R. Brown, Appellant, v. Everett F. McNab et al., and Frank J. Balantic, Respondents.

In a proceeding to invalidate (1) an authorization granting permission to respondent Balantic, an enrolled voter of the Conservative Party, to be a candidate in the Republican Party Primary Election to be held on June 17, 1969 for nomination for the public office of County Legislature, 16th Legislative District, Suffolk County, which authorization the respondent Board of Elections has determined to be valid, and (2) petitions designating said respondent as such candidate, petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered June 10, 1969, which (1) dismissed the petition in the proceeding, (2) validated the authorization and (3) affirmed the determination of the respondent Board of Elections. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
akrk_ex106b.htm


    EXHIBIT 10.6b

     

    
 

    PATENT
LEASE CONTRACT

    The lessor (Party A): Fangshe
Zhang

    The renter (Party B): Xi’an Hanxin Science
& Technology Co., Ltd

     

    Date of
signing: April 15, 2006

     

    Place of
signing: Chuangxin Information building No.72,Second Keji Rd.,Hi-tech
Zone,Xi'an,China

     

    According
to “Contract laws of PRC” and relevant regulations, in order to make clear the
relation of the obligation and responsibility between the lessor and renter,
this agreement is made after the negotiation of the two parties:

    


    Section I. Party A volunteers to lease
the three patents, that is (i) “the processing technology of surface materials
of cork decoration products”(patent number is ZL 02114508.3),(ii) “the
manufacture technology of multicolor cork”(patent number is ZL 02114507.5), and
(iii) “the manufacture technology of strengthened wood planks”(patent number is
ZL 02114510.5), to Party B for non-gratuitous
use.

    


    Section
II. Deadline of lease: this contract will expire on April 16, 2011, starting
from April 17, 2006.

    


    Section
III. Rent and payment methods: the rent is 200,000 Yuan per month and should be
paid in that month.

    


    Section
IV. Obligation and responsibility of the two parties:

     

    
      	
              1.       
      

            	
              Party
      A should ensure Party B will be exclusive for the right of using the three
      patents above, and Party A must not sign other agreements related to these
      patents with a third party.

               

            


    

    
      	
              2.       
      

            	
              Party
      A should provide schemes related to the patents, including technology
      guidance, while Party A is provide the patents technology.

               

            


    

    
      	
              3.       
      

            	
              Party
      B is responsible for keeping relevant content involving these patents
      secret, and must not disclose or transfer the content of the schemes or
      the patents to other parties. Party B must be responsible for
      indemnification if such behavior
      occurs.

            


    

    


    Section
V. The two parties will negotiate to solve if there are disputes between them.
The two parties agree that the local committee will arbitrate between the two
parties if the negotiation is unsuccessful.

    


    Section
VI. Items not included in this contract will be negotiated between the two
parties, according to “Economic Contract Laws of PRC”, to get a supplement
regulation, which has the same effect with this contract.

    


    


    


    Lessor:
Fangshe
Zhang                                                                          Renter:

    Representative:
Pengcheng Chen

    


    


    Date:
April 15,
2006                                                                                 
April 15, 2006
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 2:06-cr-206-MHT

 )

ALETHIA ADRIANNE SCOTT )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the government’s motion for release of prisoner filed on

September 20, 2006, and for good cause, it is ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is

GRANTED.

It is hereby ORDERED that the United States Marshals Service release custody of Alethia

Adrianne Scott, to Tom Montgomery, Department of Homeland Security, and/or Steve McGavin,

Department of Homeland Security, and/or Tim Miller, Federal Bureau of Investigation, on

September 21, 2006, through December 21, 2006, so that said agents can take such prisoner into

custody without the necessity of the presence of a Deputy United States Marshal.

It is further ORDERED that Tom Montgomery, Department of Homeland Security,

and/or Steve McGavin, Department of Homeland Security, and/or Tim Miller, Federal Bureau

of Investigation,return said prisoner into the custody of the United States Marshals Service when

they have finished with her.

Done this 21 day of September, 2006. st

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00206-MHT-CSC Document 29 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cr-00206-MHT-CSC Document 29 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory S., Appellant.

ant. Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, imposed October 10, 1979, upon his adjudication as a youthful offender, the sentence being a one-year term of imprisonment. Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing it to probation for a period of five years and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for the imposition of conditions of probation and for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Gulotta, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
• Heat content (enthalpies) should all be based on steam 

tables (steam and condensate)

• Should include heat of make-up water as additional heat 

into boiler

• Not clear if steam data is gross or net output, or mix –

could explain very high efficiency values in data

• Base calculation on most reliable and most available 

data
Boiler

Steam Out

858 F

1185 Psig

1427 Btu/lb

769,000 lb/hr

1097 MMBtu

Heat in

1067 MMBtu

Steam to process

858 F

1185 Psig

1427 Btu/lb

677,000 lb/hr

966.1 MMBtu

Pegging steam

92,000 lb/hr

130.9 MMBtu

1

1

2 3

4

DA

Feedwater

280 F

249.3 Btu/lb

769,000 lb/hr

191.7 MMBtu

Return Condensate

143 F

111 Btu/lb

521,300 lb/hr (77%)

57.8 MMBtu

Make up

60 F

28 Btu/lb

155,700 lb/hr

4.4 MMBtu

5

6

7

AZCatalystPaperSnowflake
Efficiency 1 = (2-7)/1 = (1097-191.7)/1067 = 84.8%

Efficiency 2 = (3-5-6)/1 = (966.1-57.8-4.4)/1067 = 84.7%

Efficiency 3 = (2-5)/1 = (1097-57.8)/1067 = 97.3%
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

STEVEN SMITH,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD (CONSOLIDATED 

FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF 

DELAWARE),

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 331 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

and the Application for Leave to File a Reply are DENIED.
#### In re ELDRED.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 7, 1914.)

In the matter of the judicial settlement of the accounts of Nelson B. Eldred, as executor, etc., of Katherine R. Beardsley, deceased.

No opinion. Decree affirmed, with costs to each party appearing by separate attorneys, payable out of the estate.
Case 2:06-cv-00712-MEF-CSC Document 8 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00712-MEF-CSC Document 8 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00712-MEF-CSC Document 8 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00712-MEF-CSC Document 8 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 4 of 4
Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 50 Filed 02/07/07 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 50 Filed 02/07/07 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 50 Filed 02/07/07 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 50 Filed 02/07/07 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 50 Filed 02/07/07 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 50 Filed 02/07/07 Page 6 of 6
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Realmark Property Investors Limited Partnership IV for
the quarter ended March 31, 2000, and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                           189,634
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     28,524
<ALLOWANCES>                                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                       0
<PP&E>                                                         5,121,009
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 2,365,276
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 3,015,963
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          1,592,734
<BONDS>                                                                0
<COMMON>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                                             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   3,015,963
<SALES>                                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 289,403
<CGS>                                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    248,935
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               159,872
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  (89,404)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     (89,404)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                          0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>         5
<MULTIPLIER>      1
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             9-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              Sep-30-1996
<CASH>                                        266,180
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2,485
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              329,432
<PP&E>                                      9,707,392
<DEPRECIATION>                              2,483,949
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              7,557,670
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         172,140
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                  7,385,530
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                7,557,670
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1,132,973
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 769,296
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               363,677
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           363,677
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  363,677
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   32.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   32.58
<FN> 
The Earnings Per Share data noted above refers to net income per limited
partnership units.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
§ 631.6 Land eligible for the program. The program is applicable to: ( a ) Privately owned land,
( b ) Nonfederally owned public land under private control for the contract period and included in the participant's operating unit, and
( c ) Federally owned land, if installation of conservation practices would directly benefit nearby or adjoining privately owned land of persons who maintain and use the Federal land.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 5, 2011 

d0928 

Order 

 

October 5, 2011 

143101 

RAMCO HARTLAND L.L.C., RAMCO RM 

HARTLAND SC L.L.C., and RAMCO RM 

HARTLAND DISPOSITION L.L.C., 

Plaintiffs-CounterDefendants-Appellants, 

v SC: 143101 

 COA: 294890 

Oakland CC: 2008-093556-CK 

LANDMARK/MANSOUR DEVELOPMENT 

L.L.C., 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

HANI MANSOUR, 

Defendant-CounterPlaintiff-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 8, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
1303.906 Remedies.

The designee authorized to determine whether a contractor has subjected an employee to reprisal

and to determine the appropriate remedy is set forth in CAM 1301.70.

Parent topic: Subpart 1303.9 - Whistleblower Protections for Contractor Employees