alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Compilation of gallium resource data for bauxite deposits

By: Ruth F. SchulteNora K. Foley**

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20131272

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Documents:                                -  **Index Page**                                                                                                     (html)                                                                                                                                     
  - **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf) 
- Companion File:  **Companion Files**                            (zip)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Gallium (Ga) concentrations for bauxite deposits worldwide have been compiled from the literature to provide a basis for research regarding the occurrence and distribution of Ga worldwide, as well as between types of bauxite deposits. In addition, this report is an attempt to bring together reported Ga concentration data into one database to supplement ongoing U.S. Geological Survey studies of critical mineral resources.

The compilation of Ga data consists of location, deposit size, bauxite type and host rock, development status, major oxide data, trace element (Ga) data and analytical method(s) used to derive the data, and tonnage values for deposits within bauxite provinces and districts worldwide. The range in Ga concentrations for bauxite deposits worldwide is p>                        Publication typeReportPublication SubtypeUSGS Numbered SeriesTitleCompilation of gallium resource data for bauxite depositsSeries titleOpen-File ReportSeries number2013-1272DOI10.3133/ofr20131272Year Published2014LanguageEnglishPublisherU.S. Geological SurveyPublisher locationReston, VAContributing office(s)Eastern Mineral and Environmental Resources Science Center, Mineral Resources ProgramDescriptionReport: iv, 14 p.; Table: ZIP fileOnline Only (Y/N)YGoogle Analytic MetricsMetrics pageAdditional publication details
Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
DOI Privacy Policy |            Legal |            Accessibility |            Site Map |            Contact USGSU.S. Department of the Interior |            DOI Inspector General |            White House |            E-gov |            No Fear Act |            FOIA
###### Editorial Note on Part 173

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 173 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

#### § 173.230 Ethylene dichloride.

A tolerance of 30 parts per million is established for ethylene dichloride in spice oleoresins when present therein as a residue from the extraction of spice; *Provided, however,* That if residues of other chlorinated solvents are also present the total of all residues of such solvents shall not exceed 30 parts per million.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Peter Batalias, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered September 23, 1968, convicting him . of grand larceny in the second degree and other crimes, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new -trial ordered. The findings of fact below are affirmed. On February 11, 1965, defendant appeared before the Grand Jury under a general waiver of immunity after having been previously indicted for transactions' which were the subject matter of his subsequent testimony. It is conceded that neither he nor his *1069attorney had been informed that he had been indicted. At the hearing held to determine whether the Grand Jury testimony was admissible at the trial, there was a conflict of evidence as to whether defendant had appeared before the Grand Jury at his own request or under the compulsion of subpoena. Prior to examining him before the Grand Jury, the District Attorney stated the following: *“*In case this grand jury has indicted you, everything that you say here may be used against you in the prosecution of such indictment. Do you realize that? ” In our opinion, elementary fairness requires that the District Attorney disclose the fact of indictment to anyone appearing before a Grand Jury who has already been indicted. Failure to make such disclosure deprives the one indicted of an intelligent choice between claiming or waiving his right to counsel. If advised by the District Attorney that he had been indicted, defendant may well not have testified. We do not think that the guarded statement of the District Attorney was enough to enable defendant to make a rational decision on whether to waive his right to counsel. There must be an awareness of all the consequences flowing from the testimony before a waiver may be intelligently made (cf. *Miranda*v. *Arizona,*384 U. S. 436, 469). Before a defendant's post-indictment Grand Jury testimony may be admitted at his trial, there must be a showing that he was informed of the indictment prior to testifying. There was no such showing in this case. The Grand Jury testimony should not have been admitted at the trial. This holding is not affected by the circumstances surrounding defendant’s appearance before the Grand Jury. The rationale for holding that he did not intelligently waive his right to counsel mandates a holding that his appearance was not voluntary, even though it may have been upon his own initiative. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33325]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: March 14-16, 2011.
    Time: 6 p.m. to 12 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: JW Marriott, 900 W. Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90015.
    Contact Person: Manana Sukhareva, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy 
Boulevard, Suite 959, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-3397, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0e7d7b65666f7c6b634e636f67622060676620696178"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="087b7d6360697a6d65486569616426666160266f677e">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: December 29, 2010.
Anna P. Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-33325 Filed 1-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas G. Hood, certify that:

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofSouthwall Technologies Inc.;

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; and

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport.
Editorial Note on Part 17
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 17 appear at 68 FR 24879, May 9, 2003, and at 88 FR 45065, July 14, 2023.

§ 17.17 Summary decisions. ( a ) At any time after the filing of a complaint, a party may move, with or without supporting affidavits (which, for purposes of this part, shall include declarations under penalty of perjury), for a summary decision on any issue in the hearing. The other party may, within 30 days after service of the motion, which may be extended for an additional 10 days for good cause, serve opposing affidavits or countermove for summary decision. The presiding officer may set the matter for argument and call for the submission of briefs.
( b ) The presiding officer shall grant the motion if the pleadings, affidavits, and other material filed in the record, or matters officially noticed, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the party is entitled to summary decision as a matter of law.
( c ) Affidavits shall set forth only such facts as would be admissible in evidence and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated. When a motion for summary decision is made and supported as provided in this regulation, a party opposing the motion may not rest on mere allegations or denials or general descriptions of positions and contentions; affidavits or other responses must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for the hearing.
( d ) If, on motion under this section, a summary decision is not rendered on all issues or for all the relief asked, and if additional facts need to be developed, the presiding officer will issue an order specifying the facts that appear without substantial controversy and directing further evidentiary proceedings on facts still at issue. The facts specified not to be at issue shall be deemed established.
( e ) Except as provided in § 17.18, a party may not obtain interlocutory review by the entity deciding the appeal (currently the DAB) of a partial summary decision of the presiding officer. A review of final summary decisions on all issues may be had through the procedure set forth in § 17.47.
Form of Common Stock Certificate



 EXHIBIT 4.1 
  

	


			
	 NUMBER
 ________                
	  	 SHARES
  **    **


 OMNI FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. 
 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA 
 THIS CERTIFIES THAT
                                       
                                        
          is hereby issued
                                        
     fully paid and non-assessable Shares of the Common Stock of the above named Corporation transferable only in the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized Attorney upon
surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its
duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto affixed this      day of
                         A.D.
                 
 [SEAL] 
  

					
	  
	 		 	  

	Secretary	 		 	Chairman and CEO








 For value
received,                         hereby sells, assigns and transfers
unto                                      
                      
                                        
         Shares represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
                                        
                                        
                     Attorney to transfer the said Shares on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of
substitution in the premises. 
 Dated
                                     
  

	
	In presence of
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 532 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 532

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding conduct 
               during a rendition of the National Anthem.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 25, 2017

 Mrs. Blackburn submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding conduct 
               during a rendition of the National Anthem.

Whereas the composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-
        Spangled Banner is the National Anthem of the United States;
Whereas the words of the Star-Spangled Banner were written by Francis Scott Key 
        after witnessing an American triumph over British military forces 
        attacking Fort McHenry, Baltimore, in September 1814; and
Whereas on March 3, 1931, the Star-Spangled Banner became the National Anthem of 
        the United States by resolution of Congress: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
appropriate conduct during a rendition of the National Anthem is 
codified in section 301(b) of title 36, United States Code, which 
specifies that persons present who are not in uniform or are not 
members of the Armed Forces or veterans ``should face the flag and 
stand at attention with their right hand over the heart''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Reporton Form 10-Q/A of Southwall Technologies Inc. (the “Company”), for the quarterended June 27, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Maury Austin, the Chief Financial Officerof the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2)   theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        | September 7, 2004 | By:      | /s/ Maury  Austin         |   |
|--------|------------------------|----------|---------------------------|--------|
|   |                   |     | Maury Austin              |
|   |                   | * * | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

In accordance with Item 601 of Regulation S-K, thiscertification is being “furnished” as Exhibit 32.2 to the Company’squarterly report and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwisesubject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporatedby reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the ExchangeAct, except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.

----
Exhibit 32.01

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS

CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of Amerityre Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-
KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Steinke,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 (1) 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 result of operations of the Company.


/S/ Richard A. Steinke
Richard A. Steinke
Chief Executive Officer

September 26, 2003

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 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.
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7177 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 4, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to consolidate certain 

divisions in the Northern District of Alabama. 

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


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 7177 RFS

1 SECTION 1. CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN DIVISIONS IN 

2 THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA. 

3 Section 81(a) of title 28, United States Code, is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by 

6 striking ‘‘seven’’ and inserting ‘‘five’’; 

7 (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and Lauder8 dale’’ and inserting ‘‘Lauderdale, and Lawrence’’; 

9 (3) in paragraph (2)— 

10 (A) by striking ‘‘Lawrence,’’; 

11 (B) by inserting after ‘‘Madison,’’ the fol12 lowing: ‘‘Marshall,’’; and 

13 (C) by striking ‘‘and Decatur’’; 

14 (4) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘Clay, 

15 Cleburne,’’ and inserting ‘‘Cherokee, Clay, Cleburne, 

16 DeKalb, Etowah, Saint Clair,’’; 

17 (5) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘Greene, Pick18 ens, Sumter, and Tuscaloosa’’ and inserting ‘‘Fay19 ette, Greene, Lamar, Marion, Pickens, Sumter, Tus20 caloosa, Walker, and Winston’’; 

21 (6) by striking paragraph (6); and 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 7177 RFS

1 (7) by striking paragraph (7). 

Passed the House of Representatives December 3, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-95630, No. 333-04192, and No. 333-04190 of MiniMed Inc. on Form S-8 of our
report dated February 9, 2000 (except for Note 15, as to which the date is March
8, 2000), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of MiniMed, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 1999.


/s/  DELOITTE & TOUCHE, LLP
-----------------------------------
Los Angeles, California
March 30, 2000
###### Editorial Note on Part 177

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 177 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 70 FR 72074, Dec. 1, 2005; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

#### § 177.2415 Poly(aryletherketone) resins.

Poly(aryletherketone) resins identified in paragraph (a) of this section may be safely used as articles or components of articles intended for repeated use in contact with food subject to the provisions of this section.

(a) *Identity.* For the purposes of this section, poly(aryletherketone) resins are poly(*p*-oxyphenylene *p*-oxyphenylene *p*-carboxyphenylene) resins (CAS Reg. No. 29658-26-2) produced by the polymerization of hydroquinone and 4,4′-difluorobenzophenone, and have a minimum weight-average molecular weight of 12,000, as determined by gel permeation chromatography in comparison with polystyrene standards, and a minimum mid-point glass transition temperature of 142 °C, as determined by differential scanning calorimetry.

(b) *Optional adjuvant substances.* The basic resins identified in paragraph (a) may contain optional adjuvant substances used in their production. These adjuvants may include substances described in § 174.5(d) of this chapter and the following:

| Substance | Limitations |
| --- | --- |
| Diphenyl sulfone | Not to exceed 0.2 percent by weight as a residual solvent in the finished basic resin. |

(c) *Extractive limitations.* The finished food contact article, when extracted at reflux temperatures for 2 hours with the following four solvents, yields in each extracting solvent net chloroform soluble extractives not to exceed 0.05 milligrams per square inch of food contact surface: Distilled water, 50 percent (by volume) ethanol in distilled water, 3 percent acetic acid in distilled water, and *n*-heptane. In testing the final food contact article, a separate test sample shall be used for each extracting solvent.

[63 FR 20315, Apr. 24, 1998]
#### Seltzer License

*Edward Youngerman,*for appellant.

*Frederick J. Bertolet,*for Commonwealth.

October 16, 1950.

Hess, J.,

Appellant Irvin Seltzer was arrested in Bucks County, Pa., on February 28, 1950, by an officer of the Pennsylvania State police, charged with exceeding the statutory speed limit of 50 miles per hour. Appellant was clocked at a speed of 60 miles per hour; the weather was clear and dry, and the offense occurred on a three-lane highway during *575the daytime. Traffic was normal and the officer stated that the only offense observed was violation of the speed limit established by law. The record does not establish other violations of The Vehicle Code either prior to the date of arrest or following that date.

The court in other cases on similar facts has ruled that it will not necessarily sustain a suspension based merely upon a technical violation of the 50-mile speed limit. In each case we have considered the attending circumstances along with the violation, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Commonwealth v. Wagner, 364 Pa. 566, has affirmed the action of this court in so doing. Accordingly, the appeal is sustained.

And now, to wit, October 16,1950, the appeal is sustained and the Secretary of Revenue is directed to reinstate the operating privileges of Irvin Seltzer, appellant herein.