alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### PEOPLE v. WISHNER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 27, 1914.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Max Wishner.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Order filed.
# Fourth Court of Ap peals San Antonio, Texas

August 12, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00357

- CR

Marcus IDROGO, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16

- 07

- 159

- CRW Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s notice of request for reporter’s record and clarification of indigency is granted. As noted in this court’s August 1, 2019 order, the reporter’s record is due on August 23, 2019

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of t he said court on this 12th day of August, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
§ 200.440 Exchange rates. ( a ) Cost increases for fluctuations in exchange rates are allowable costs subject to the availability of funding. Prior approval of exchange rate fluctuations is required only when the change results in the need for additional Federal funding, or the increased costs result in the need to significantly reduce the scope of the project. The Federal awarding agency must however ensure that adequate funds are available to cover currency fluctuations in order to avoid a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act.
( b ) The non-Federal entity is required to make reviews of local currency gains to determine the need for additional federal funding before the expiration date of the Federal award. Subsequent adjustments for currency increases may be allowable only when the non-Federal entity provides the Federal awarding agency with adequate source documentation from a commonly used source in effect at the time the expense was made, and to the extent that sufficient Federal funds are available.
[78 FR 78608, Dec. 26, 2013, as amended at 79 FR 75886, Dec. 19, 2014]
EXHIBIT 32.2



STRATEX NETWORKS, INC.



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED

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



In connection with the periodic report of Stratex Networks, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Carl A. Thomsen, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.



This Certification has not been, and shall not
be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                       |  |                                       
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|Date: November 9, 2004 |  | /s/ Carl A. Thomsen                   
|                       |  | Carl A. Thomsen                       
|                       |  | Chief Financial and Accounting Officer
Editorial Note on Part 70
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 70 appear at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 70.81 Modification and revocation of licenses. ( a ) The terms and conditions of all licenses shall be subject to amendment, revision, or modification by reason of amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, or by reason of rules, regulations or orders issued in accordance with the Act or any amendments thereto;
( b ) Any license may be revoked, suspended or modified for any material false statements in the application or any statement of fact required under section 182 of the Act or because of conditions revealed by such application or statement of fact or any report, record, or inspection or other means which would warrant the Commission to refuse to grant a license on an original application, or for failure to construct or operate a facility in accordance with the terms of the construction permit or license, the technical specifications in the application, or for violation of, or failure to observe any of the terms and conditions of the Act, or of any regulation of the Commission.
( c ) Upon revocation, suspension or modification of a license, the Commission may immediately retake possession of all special nuclear material held by the licensee. In cases found by the Commission to be of extreme importance to the national defense or security, or to the health and safety of the public, the Commission may recapture any special nuclear material held by the licensee prior to any of the procedures provided under section 551-558 of title 5 of the United States Code.
( d ) Except in cases of willfulness or those in which the public health, interest or safety requires otherwise, no license shall be modified, suspended or revoked unless, prior to the institution of proceedings therefor, facts or conduct which may warrant such action shall have been called to the attention of the licensee in writing and the licensee shall have been accorded opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance with all lawful requirements.
[21 FR 764, Feb. 3, 1956, as amended at 35 FR 11461, July 17, 1970. Redesignated at 65 FR 56226, Sept. 18, 2000]
227 So.2d 148

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Frank BOLTON, Jr., et al.

No. 50175.

Oct. 23, 1969.

In re: Frank Bolton, Jr., et al. applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ refused. We find no error of law in the rulings complained of.
### Request for Information Captain Ron's Drone Flying Service (FAA-2015-3046) 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA)

Dear Mr. Strac:
This letter is to inform you that the following information is miss ing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

− 2015

− 3046). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administrati on (FAA) to process your
p etition.

Provide a copy of the Motion Pictur e and Television Operations Manual (M PTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closed

- set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your in tention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional informat ion (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov . Once your information has been submitted, pl ease also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations .gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. I f you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information de scribed above by November 13, 2015. If we do not receive the in formation, we will close the doc ket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at (202) 267-2999 .

FAA Office of Rulemaking Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 8:06 AM To: ronstrac@gmail.com
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
ART. 5 FDS for third quarter 1997 10-q
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              10,054
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      129,174
<ALLOWANCES>                                         4,945
<INVENTORY>                                        154,607
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   292,306
<PP&E>                                           1,034,527
<DEPRECIATION>                                     325,747
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,294,176
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              102,709
<BONDS>                                            385,725
<COMMON>                                                34
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                         632,332
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,294,176
<SALES>                                            799,041
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   799,041
<CGS>                                              678,163
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      678,163
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    70,032
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10,211
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     40,635
<INCOME-TAX>                                        16,831
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 23,804
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        23,804
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.76
        
















</TABLE>
#### Moe Siegel et al., Respondents, v. Jack Kranis, Appellant.

In this action to recover damages on the grounds of defendant’s alleged negligence and malpractice, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 3, 1969, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, pursuant to CPLR 3212, and set the case down for an assessment of damages. Order modified, (1) by inserting in the first decretal paragraph thereof, immediately after the provision that the motion is “granted”, the following: “to the extent set forth below”; (2) by inserting the following immediately after the first decretal paragraph thereof: “ ordered that the following facts shall be deemed established for all purposes in the action: 1. Plaintiffs were involved in an automobile accident on February 15, 1960; 2. The automobile involved was owned by Fred Battles and operated by Roland Rouse; 3. Plaintiffs retained defendant as attorney, by written retainer agreement, to prosecute their claim, on March 2, 1960; 4. Defendant never commenced an action against Fred Battles or Roland Rouse on behalf of plaintiffs; 5. Defendant individually never filed a notice of claim with Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnity Corporation on August 11, 1960; 6. A claim on behalf of the plaintiffs was filed with the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation on August 11, 1960; 7. T-he claim was rejected by Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation on September 28, 1960, on the ground that it had not been filed within the prescribed statutory period of 90 days after the accident; 8. On November 15, 1962, arbitration of the claim was demanded upon behalf of plaintiffs; 9. A jury on September 23, 1965 found adversely to plaintiffs on the issue of the timeliness of the filing of the claim; 10. On October 7, 1965, the Supreme Court, New York County, entered an order staying arbitration; 11. Plaintiffs have lost their rights to attempt to collect for their injuries from Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation or Fred Battles or Roland Rouse; and it is further”; and (3) by striking from the second decretal paragraph thereof everything from “ that an assessment” to “the Justice presiding ”, inclusive, and substituting therefor the following: “ the ease shall proceed to trial upon all the remaining issues, *989including damages, on the earliest available date ”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In its decision, the Special Term stated in part: *“*In setting this case down for an assessment of damages, the court does not overlook the fact that for plaintiffs to recover they must not only prove their cause of action against the original tort feasors, but must also prove their injuries and special damages, if any. * * * Hence the limitation on the amount of recovery against defendant is whatever sums a jury may fix as their damages for their injuries, medical and hospital bills, if any, and loss of earnings, if any.” In our opinion, Special Term’s order is neither consonant with nor in conformity to its decision. Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Klemfeld and Brennan, JJ., concur.
**GAO-04-892T**                      Published: Jun 17, 2004. Publicly Released: Jun 17, 2004.                  

-   
-   
-   
-   

    Jump To:  
-  Elder Abuse 
-  Services for Older Adults 
-  State and Local-Level Drivers and Trends 
-  State and Local Fiscal Projections 
-  Federal Borrowing 
-  Managing the Debt 
-  Summary of Funding Provisions 
-  Auditing the Government's Books 
-  Unpacking the Financial Report 
-  Highlights 
-  Recommendations 
-  Background 
-  About This Work 
-  About This Work 
-  Trends 
-  About the Center 
-  Why It's High Risk 
-  What Remains To Be Done 
-  Key Reports 
-  Newest COVID-Related Reports 
-  AI Use Cases 
-  Flood Insurance 
-  Past Pandemic-Related Reports 
-  CARES Act Oversight Reports 
-  All COVID-19 Reports 
-  Report Suspected Fraud 
-  Subjects 
-  How to Get Notified 
-  Past Reports 
-  Public Health Threats 
-  Explore the FY 2022 and 2023 Funds 
-  Status of FY22 Projects 
-  Lessons Learned 
-  Agency Reports 
-  Recent Reports 
-  Recommendations 
-  Supplemental Material 
-  Full Report 
-  Additional Data 
-  View Decision 
-  Downloads 
-  Previously Identified Actions 
-  Related Pages 
-  Associated Agencies 
-  Tough Choices and Opportunities Ahead 
-  Americas Fiscal Future Key Areas 
-  Retirement Security Key Areas 
-  Current List 
-  About The High Risk List 
-  Area Ratings 
-  Previous High Risk Products 
-  Search Federal Vacancies 
-  Past Federal Vacancies 
-  Violation Letters 
-  About the Yellow Book 
-  Advisory Council 
-  Related Resources 
-  Comment Letters 
-  Related Publications 
-  Contacts and Resources 
-  Major Issues Facing the Nation 
-  Meeting Strategic Challenges 
-  Additional Resources 
-  Resources 
-  GAO Contacts 
-  Mission Teams 
-  Operations and Staff Offices  
-  Organization Chart  
-  Why a Career at GAO? 
-  Am I Qualified? 
-  Company Culture 
-  Reasonable Accommodations 
-  Video Gallery 
-  Paid Internships 
-  Student Volunteers 
-  Professional Development Program 
-  Advancement 
-  Executive Candidate Program 
-  Summer Associates 
-  Externships 
-  Benefits 
-  Contacts 

Skip to Highlights

## Highlights

GAO summarized the results of its investigation of some of the business practices of certain U.S. Internet pharmacies that sold narcotics without a prescription. At the request of the Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, GAO attempted to obtain information about the sources of hydrocodone that it purchased without a prescription from eight U.S. online pharmacies. Hydrocodone is an addictive narcotic pain medication, and illicit use of this drug has increased significantly in recent years.

## Full Report

Full Report (8 pages)

Accessible Text 

## Office of Public Affairs

### Media Inquiries

Sarah Kaczmarek
kaczmareks@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

### Public Inquiries

Public Affairs
PublicAffairs@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

## Topics

Health Care

CrimesSubstance abuseInternetNarcoticsPharmaceutical industryPhysiciansPrices and pricingWebsitesCredit cardsPharmacy
#### § 1128.3 Exceptions from requirements of this part.

Exceptions are permitted from the administrative requirements in this part only as described at 2 CFR 1126.3.
§ 76.89 Criticality accident requirements. ( a ) The Corporation must maintain and operate a criticality monitoring and audible alarm system meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section in all areas of the facility. The Corporation may describe for the approval of the Commission defined areas to be excluded from the monitoring requirement. This submittal must describe the measures that will be used to ensure against criticality, including kinds and quantities of material that will be permitted and measures that will be used to control those kinds and quantities of material.
( b ) The system must detect and annunciate a criticality that produces an absorbed dose in soft tissue of 20 rads of combined neutron and gamma radiation at an unshielded distance of 2 meters from the reacting material within 1 minute. Coverage of all monitored areas must be provided by two detectors.
§ 1329.20 Does this part apply to me? This part and, through this part, pertinent portions of the OMB guidance in subparts A through F of 2 CFR part 182 (see table at 2 CFR 182.115(b)) apply to you if you are a— ( a ) Recipient of a Department of Commerce grant or cooperative agreement; or
( b ) Department of Commerce awarding official.
#### Roy Forlong et al., Respondents, v Jamurath Faulton et al., Appellants.

[814 NYS2d 530]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated September 28, 2005, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Roy Forlong did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants did not establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as they must do on their motion for summary judgment *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). The defendants failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff Roy Forlong (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident *(see Hussain v Wang,*18 AD3d 816, 817 [2005]). The defendants failed to demonstrate that the limitation of flexion and extension of the injured plaintiffs lumbar spine, as found by their examining orthopedist, did not evince a serious injury, or was not caused by the accident *(see Berkowitz v Decker Transp. Co.,*5 AD3d 712, 713 [2004]; *Peplow v Murat,*304 AD2d 633 [2003]; *Onder v*
      *857
      *Kaminski,*303 AD2d 665, 666 [2003]). In addition, the defendants’ examining orthopedist did not compare the recorded range of motion with a normal range of motion *(see Kennedy v Brown,*23 AD3d 625 [2005]; *Bent v Jackson,*15 AD3d 46, 49 [2005]). Because the defendants failed to meet their burden, the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers need not be considered *(see Kennedy v Brown, supra; Berkowitz v Decker Transp. Co., supra; D’Angelo v Guerra,*307 AD2d 306, 307 [2003]; *Ervin v Helfant,*303 AD2d 716 [2003]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Luciano, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
NO. 07-05-0398-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	JANUARY 6, 2006

	______________________________

	TERRY WAYNE STEWART,

				Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

				Appellee

								_________________________________

	FROM THE 251st DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 33,132-C; HON. PATRICK PIRTLE, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	Terry Wayne Stewart appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for “bill of review.”  The clerk’s record was due to be filed on December 5, 2005.  On December 13, 2005, the clerk filed her first extension request to file the record because appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and no attorney has been appointed on appeal.

	Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 251st District Court of Potter County (trial court) for further proceedings.  Upon remand, the trial court shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to determine the following:

	1.  	whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal; and,

	2.  	whether appellant is indigent and entitled to appointed counsel and a free record on appeal. 

	The trial court shall cause the hearing to be transcribed.  So too shall it 1) execute findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing issues, 2) cause to be developed a supplemental clerk’s record containing its findings of fact and conclusions of law and all orders it may issue as a result of its hearing in this matter, and 3) cause to be developed a reporter’s record transcribing the evidence and arguments presented at the aforementioned hearing.  Additionally, the district court shall then file the supplemental record and reporter’s record transcribing the hearing with the clerk of this court on or before February 6, 2006.  Should further time be needed by the trial court to perform these tasks, then same must be requested before February 6, 2006.

	It is so ordered.

							Per Curiam

Do not publish.
IV 

House Calendar No. 74 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 392 

[Report No. 109–198] 

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 

bill (H.R. 2361) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2005 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 

resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving points of order against the conference report to 

accompany the bill (H.R. 2361) making appropriations 

for the Department of the Interior, environment, and 

related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 

30, 2006, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 2361) making appropriations for 

4 the Department of the Interior, environment, and related 
2 

HRES 392 RH 

1 agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, 

2 and for other purposes. All points of order against the con3 ference report and against its consideration are waived. 

4 The conference report shall be considered as read. 

House Calendar No. 74 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 392 

[Report No. 109–198] 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving points of order against the conference reother purposes. fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for rior, environment, and related agencies for the appropriations for the Department of the Inte- port to accompany the bill (H.R. 2361) making 

JULY 27, 2005 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
#### § 780.11 Records of the Board.

The records of the Board in cases filed before it, including the pleadings, the transcript, and the final decision, shall be open to public inspection, except to the extent that such records or portions thereof are withheld from disclosure by the Board pursuant to 10 CFR part 1004.
227 So.2d 596

#### Willis L. GORE et al. v. AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 50138.

Nov. 12, 1969.

In re: Willis L. Gore et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal,' First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 225 So.2d 627.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.