alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Walsh, etc., v. Kane et al.

*Joseph J. Walsh,*for plaintiff.

Jerome *E. Parker,*for defendants.

December 22, 1950.

Eagen, J.,

— Plaintiff, Henry C. Walsh, has been doing business in Scranton for several years under the trade name of the “Ace Storm Window Sales Company”. He complied with the “Fictitious Names Act” of May 24,1945, P. L. 967, by registering the business name in the prothonotary’s office of Lackawanna County on October 9, 1946, and in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth on October 10, 1946. At that time, and until recently, he was the local distributor for products known as Ace storm windows and doors manufactured outside of the city. Defendant is now the local distributor of these products by virtue of a contract with the manufacturer.

Defendant recently advertised his intention to file in the office of the Prothonotary of Lackawanna County and in the office of the Secretary of the Com*608monwealth an application for registration of the trade name, “Ace Storm Window Company of Scranton”. This action in equity seeks to enjoin defendant’s use of this trade name and his registration thereof. We are here concerned with whether or not a temporary injunction should issue until final hearing.

As a general rule, a business whose trade name is duly registered has a right to its name and another will be restrained from its use. This right to the exclusive use of its own name includes the right to prohibit another from using the same name or one so similar that it is calculated to or will deceive the public: Consolidated Home Specialties Company v. Plotkin, 358 Pa. 14. Undoubtedly, the trade name which defendant contemplates for his business is so similar to that used by plaintiff that confusion will result. There is nothing in the record before us that justifies defendant’s use of the name associated with plaintiff’s business since the year 1946. It may well be that the manufacturer of the Ace products has an established property right in the Ace name, which the courts will and should recognize and uphold. However, the manufacturer is not a party to this case and that question is not before us.

Now, December 22, 1950, the temporary injunction until final hearing prayed for is granted.
Editorial Note on Part 184
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 184 appear at 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; and 81 FR 49897, July 29, 2016.

§ 184.1751 Sodium citrate. ( a ) Sodium citrate (C6H5Na3O7·2H2O, CAS Reg. No. 68-0904-092) is the sodium salt of citric acid. It is prepared by neutralizing citric acid with sodium hydroxide or sodium carbonate. The product occurs as colorless crystals or a white crystalline powder. It may be prepared in an anhydrous state or may contain two moles of water per mole of sodium citrate.
( b ) The ingredient meets the specifications of the Food Chemicals Codex, 3d ed. (1981), pp. 283-284, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies are available from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20418, and the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-200), 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, or may be examined at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( c ) In accordance with § 184.1(b)(1), the ingredient is used in food with no limitation other than current good manufacturing practice.
( d ) Prior sanctions for this ingredient different from the uses established in this section, or different from those set forth in part 181 of this chapter, do not exist or have been waived.
[59 FR 63896, Dec. 12, 1994]
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-07-14T12:31:46-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: David Ignacio Cristan v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-21-00647-CR

Trial court case number: 19-CR-2275

Trial court: 56th District Court of Galveston County

Court-appointed counsel for Appellant David Ignacio Cristan filed a brief concluding that 

this appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant, acting 

pro se, subsequently filed a motion requesting access to a copy of the appellate record for use in 

preparing a response to his appointed counsel’s brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 315, 

318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). We GRANT the motion.

We ORDER the trial court clerk, no later than 10 days from the date of this order, to 

provide a copy of the record, including the clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, and any 

supplemental records, to Appellant. The trial court clerk shall further certify to this Court, within 

15 days of the date of this order, the date upon which delivery of the record to the Appellant is 

made. Appellant’s brief is due 30 days from the date of delivery of the record.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Veronica Rivas-Molloy

Acting individually 

Date: June 23, 2022
AVS

Quality Management

System

Title: Domestic Change Worksheet

QPM#

AIR-ANM-030-F4

Date: December 17, 2008

Revision

1

Record of Contacts

FDMS Docket No_FAA~:2.biO_ D<09~~~ _

______ E__ .__ ----- FE -----.---

With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed (i.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, etc.)?

Organization Perso~ Contacted Date

,

Boeing J.B. Zundel! (FA~ letter 140S-09-208a) August 31. 2009

I

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED

Check the Master Ust to Verify That This is Ihelcorrect Revision Before Use
[No. 38037-1-I.

Division One.

May 27, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Carlos Ibarra-Bucanegra, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-1-07288-3, James A. Noe, J., entered January 19, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
#### § 225.165 Equipment cleanout procedures.

Adequate procedures shall be established and used for all equipment used in the production and distribution of medicated feeds to avoid unsafe contamination of medicated and nonmedicated feeds.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00343

- CV

PALMETTO POINTE APARTMENTS

, Appellant

v.

Jonni SALTSMAN , Jacob Sparks and All Other Occupants,

Appellees

From the County Court a t Law No. 10

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CV01108

Honorable David J. Rodriguez , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE RIOS

, JUSTICE WATKINS , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, the trial court’s final

judgment is AFFIRMED. Costs a re assessed against appellant Palmetto Pointe Apartments.

SIGNED January 10, 2024.

_____________________________ Irene Rios, Justice
#### JOHN TANIS ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. COUNTY OF PASSAIC, RESPONDENT.

Submitted February 17, 1939

Decided May 15, 1939.

For the appellants, *Henry Marelli.*

For the respondent, *Harry L. Schoen.*

Per Curiam.

The notice of appeal in this cause specifies that the appeal is taken “from that part of the judgment striking the complaint therein entered, on the first day of July, 1937, so far as the same affects the first five counts of said complaint sji *))*

But no such judgment is before us. The printed case shows a complaint in seven counts; a notice of motion to strike out that complaint on five stated grounds; a stipulation of facts, concluding with five questions which “the court is to decide;” and adding that “judgment is to be entered in harmony with the decision of the court on each of the above points.” Next, we have an opinion by the court below, dated July 1st, 1937, followed by a rule striking out the complaint as not setting forth a legal cause of action. This rule is dated July 12th, 1937; and as already noted, the appeal is from a “judgment entered July 1st, 1937, which is the date of the opinion. But passing this point, and treating the appeal as taken from either the opinion or the subsequent order, it is apparent that neither is a judgment in the sense intended by statutes or *487rules of court. As to matters of law, the motion to strike takes the place of a demurrer. Supreme Court rule 40. By the same rule, “the order made upon such motion is appeal-able after final judgment.” Ho such judgment appears in the case: and without it, appeal does not lie. *Sautter*v. *Order of Heptasophs,*74 *N. J. L.*608.

Under the common law practice, where a pleading was held bad on demurrer, our courts have been liberal in permitting amendment *(Ten Eyck*v. *Delaware, &c., Canal Co.,*19 *N. J. L.*5: *Hale*v. *Lawrence, 22 Id.*72), and this practice is recognized in the proviso to rule 84, relating to entry of judgment through the clerk’s office in cases “where, as the result of striking out a pleading *without leave to amend or file a new pleading,*the record indicates that a party is entitled to judgment as in case of default in pleading.”

Conceivably, in this cause, the court below, on application, might have permitted the filing of an amended complaint; conceivably, on the other hand, the decision was determinative of all questions that could be raised, and final judgment was in order. But until thei*e is a final judgment, by the plain intendment of rule 40, there is nothing for an appellate court to review.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

*For dismissal*— The Chanoelloe, Chief Justice, Paetcee, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heheb, Pbeskie, Poetee, Hetfteld, Deab, Wells, WolfsKeil, Raffeett, Hague, JJ. 15.
### 316B PHASE III RULE **TELEPHONE LOG**
Name of Caller: John Sunda, SAIC Date: February 12, 2009 Company Name: Blue Stream Services Street Address : City/State/ZIP: New Iberia, LA Person Contacted: Richard Brister Title: Cooling Tower Specialis t Telephone #: 504 - 400 - 0093

E - Mail: rabrister@bellsouth.net Called to inquire about modular tower design and why powe r use was higher He said the 3000 ton units use more fan power because of their compact design. This design allows for more flow and cooling capacity per unit that other designs and especially compared to large permanent towers. Not only does this save on space but also costs since each unit will have costs such as shipping , installation , rental, etc that are more sensitive to the number of units than the unit size. Thus, more cooling per unit e quals less costs. Ty pically , each unit uses 400 amps and if s ingle unit pumps are used they require 400 amps as well. I asked about approach values and he said a ty pical design spec for the 3000 ton unit would be: Hot water: 95 o F Cold Water: 85 o FWet Bulb: 78 o F

Thus, in this instance the approach would be 7 o F and in general, the approach will range between 7 and 10 o F. Of course this would vary with flow, range, wet bulb temperature, and ty pe of fill used. They use a Brentwood film ty

pe fill and that the fill selected will be determined by the quality

of the water. Ty

pical fill might be the Brentwood CF1900 Cross Fluted Film Fill Media . This is rated on the Brentwood website as suitable for “average to good” water which is defined as: Use CF
- 1200 or CF
- 1900 when: • TSS < 25 PPM (<100 PPM where bacterial activity is very low) • Make
- up from uncontaminated sources • Good biological & scale control • L ow cycles of concentration • Minimal airborne dust • No oils or grease If the water quality

is poor and contains solids that might tend to clog fill then a fill with larg er openings is selected. Such fill will be less efficient (less surface area and less air water contact) and may reduce efficiency

by 6 to 10%. I f all else is equal this will increase the approach. I asked whether he knew of any situations where a coolin g tower produced cooler water than the surface source water
. He said they were working on one project (deal not yet sealed) in Texas where the lake water reaches 95 o F in the summer. Operating in a helper tower mode, they figure that they will be able to r eturn cooling water back to the lake at a temperature lower than 95 o F and thus actually

reduce the lake temperature. He noted that one of their selling points is that they actually increase DO in the discharge whereas once
- through tends to do the opposite . Isuggested they lo o k at using a recirculating mode. He said they usually use a design wet bulb temperature of around 78 o F but that it might be higher in areas along the Gulf like in L ouisiana where it might be 80
- 81 o F. Even then, these design wet bu lb values are present only a fraction of the time.
### Ground-Water Reconnaissance at Pinnacles National Monument, California

By: R. E. Evenson

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1475K

#### Links

- More information:  **Publisher Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

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.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                                  CERTIFICATION
                  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
              ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350,
                   CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of National Datacomputer, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 (the
"Form 10-QSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: May 17, 2004                    /s/ John P. Ward
                                       -----------------------------------
                                       John P. Ward
                                       Chairman of the Board, President and
                                       Chief Executive Officer

Dated: May 17, 2004                    /s/ Gerald S. Eilberg
                                       -----------------------------------
                                       Gerald S. Eilberg
                                       Senior Vice President of Finance and
                                       Administration and Chief Financial
                                       Officer

A signed original 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.
Exhibit 99.1


               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 Quarterly Report of First Health Group Corp. (the
 "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with
 the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
 I, Edward L. Wristen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby
 certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (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 results of operations of the
 Company.



 /s/ Edward L. Wristen

 Edward L. Wristen
 Chief Executive Officer
 May 1, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000945828
<NAME> AMERICAN TIRE CORPORATION

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         278,822
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   93,434
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    138,852
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               684,160
<PP&E>                                       1,384,272
<DEPRECIATION>                               (301,686)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,823,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,515,450
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,829,913
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,522,221)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,823,142
<SALES>                                        373,247
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                          266,874
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,194,322
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,830,375
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             349,505
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,267,829)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                          188
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,267,641)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.20)


</TABLE>
FACT SHEET

For more information, visit CBP.gov 04/15

BACKGROUND

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is 

evaluating technologies and deploying new capabilities to improve operational processes at U.S. 

ports of entry. Beginning in March through May 

2015, CBP will test facial comparison technology at Washington Dulles International Airport. 

This project will focus on U.S. citizens presenting an ePassport when returning to the United 

States. CBP established biometric screening procedures based on fingerprints for non-U.S. citizens in 2004. 

DESCRIPTION

The 1:1 Face ePassport project is a short-term, 

biometric project that will assist in determining 

the feasibility of using facial comparison technology to help identify imposters attempting to 

enter the country using U.S. ePassports. The U.S. 

Department of State stored the passport bearer’s 

digital photo within the ePassport chip to enable 

the use of biometric comparison for border security, law enforcement, counterterrorism, and 

fraud prevention at the border. This technology 

is only one of many tools CBP officers will use to 

make admissibility decisions. A CBP officer, not 

the system, will make all decisions concerning 

entry into the United States. 

The operational goals of this project are to:

• Determine the viability of facial comparison 

technology to assist officers in identifying 

possible imposters; and

• Determine if facial comparison technology 

can easily be incorporated into the current 

arrival process.

BIOMETRIC PROCESS

During the project, randomly selected travelers 

will be directed to inspection booths equipped 

with facial comparison technology. The technology will compare an image of the traveler taken 

during the normal inspection process to the 

image stored in the U.S. ePassport. The images 

taken will be used for purposes of this limited 

project only and will not be stored or shared 

with any other party or system. CBP is dedicated 

to protecting the privacy of all travelers. 

BENEFITS

This short-term, biometric project has the 

potential to: 

• Enhance national security;

• Eliminate the imposter threat;

• Advance the integration of multiple 

biometrics into the inspection process; and

• Transform the passenger inspection process.

Ultimately, this project will provide officers with 

an automated tool to assist in the identification of 

possible fraud. It is anticipated that travelers will 

experience little or no delay during the inspection process. CBP officers will use the results in 

addition to their standard screening methods to 

verify that the person applying for entry into the 

United States is the same person to whom the 

ePassport was legally issued.

Following the project, CBP will conduct a full 

evaluation to inform the next steps to advance 

the CBP mission. n

Facial Comparison Technology Testing

CBP Publication No. 0316-0415
II 

Calendar No. 541 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7417 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 135 West Spring Street in Titusville, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Edwin L. Drake Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EDWIN L. DRAKE POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 135 West Spring Street in 

6 Titusville, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated 

7 as the ‘‘Edwin L. Drake Post Office Building’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7417 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Edwin L. Drake Post 

5 Office Building’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 541 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7417 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office Building’’. Titusville, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Edwin L. Drake al Service located at 135 West Spring Street in 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Reported without amendment 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS