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

[115th Congress Public Law 312]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 4429]]

Public Law 115-312
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, as the ``Walter H. Rice Federal 
 Building and United States Courthouse''. <<NOTE: Dec. 13, 2018 -  [S. 
                                2377]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. WALTER H. RICE FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES 
                              COURTHOUSE.

    (a) In General.--The Federal building and United States courthouse 
located at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Walter H. Rice Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 
United States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the ``Walter H. Rice Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.

    Approved December 13, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 2377:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            June 7, considered and passed Senate.
            Nov. 30, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsRevisiting the Birth of 7YSZ Thermal Barrier Coatings: Steve StecuraThermal barrier coatings are widely used in all turbine engines, typically using a 7 wt% Y2O3-ZrO2 formulation. Extensive research and development over many decades have refined the processing and structure of these coatings for increased durability and reliability. New compositions demonstrate some unique advantages and are gaining in application. However, the "7YSZ" formulation predominates and is still in widespread use. This special composition has been universally found to produce nanoscale precipitates of metastable t' tetragonal phase, giving rise to a unique toughening mechanism via ferro-elastic switching under stress. This note recalls the original study that identified superior properties of 6 to 8 wt% YSZ plasma sprayed thermal barrier coatings, published in 1978. The impact of this discovery, arguably, continues in some form to this day. At one point, 7YSZ thermal barrier coatings were used in every new aircraft and ground power turbine engine produced worldwide. It is a tribute to its inventor, Dr. Stephan J. Stecura, NASA retiree.Document ID20170002299Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsSmialek, James L.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Miller, Robert A.*(Vantage Partners, LLC Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredMarch 17, 2017Publication DateMarch 1, 2017Subject CategoryNonmetallic MaterialsReport/Patent NumberGRC-E-DAA-TN38803NASA/TM-2017-219452E-19333Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NNC12BA01BWBS: WBS 109492.02.03.02.02Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Keywordsturbine bladesthermal barrier coatingsAvailable DownloadsNameType20170002299.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 807.41 Identification of importers and persons who import or offer for import. ( a ) Upon initial registration, annually, and at the time of any changes, each foreign establishment required to register and list as provided in § 807.40(a) must, using the FDA electronic device registration and listing system, submit the name, address, telephone and fax numbers, email address, and registration number, if any has been assigned, of any importer (defined in § 807.3(x)) of the establishment's devices that is known to the foreign establishment. The foreign establishment must also specify which of the establishment's listed products each importer receives from the foreign establishment.
( b ) Upon initial registration, annually, and at the time of any changes, each foreign establishment required to register and list as provided in § 807.40(a) must, using the FDA electronic device registration and listing system, submit the name, address, telephone and fax numbers, email address, and registration number, if any has been assigned, of each person who imports or offers for import the establishment's devices into the United States. The term “person who imports or offers for import,” which is defined in § 807.3(y), includes agents, brokers, or other parties used by the foreign establishment to facilitate the import of its device into the United States.
( c ) For each individual or organization identified by the foreign establishment under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the foreign establishment must submit to FDA electronically the current FDA premarket submission number and any other identifying information that is known to the establishment for each device being imported or offered for import by the named individuals or organizations.
[77 FR 45944, Aug. 2, 2012]
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**


**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 Avitar,  Inc. (the 
"Company") on Form10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the 
"Report"),  I, Peter P.  Phildius, 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, to my
      knowledge,


that:





(1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
      Section 13(a) or15(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.





Date:
      August 14, 2007





/s/
      Peter P. Phildius


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


Peter
      P. Phildius Chief


Executive
      Officer
CAUSE NO. 01

- 15

- 00124

- CV

SUNBELT RENTALS, INC. § IN THE 1 st COURT OF APPEALS

§

VS. §

§

SOUTHWEST PIPE §

SERVICES, INC. AND §

JOE BRIERS §

DEFENDANTS’, SOUTHWEST PIPE SERVICES, INC. AND JOE BRIERS

SECOND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO FILE BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, Defendants, Southwest Pipe Services, Inc and Joe Briers,

(hereinafter “SWP”) and files this their Motion for Continuance to File Brief and will

respectfully show this Honorable Court the followi ng:

SWP’s brief is currently due June 1 6 , 2015 . Counsel for Appellants has been working

diligently to complete the brief, however, it will not be completed by the deadline prescribed

by the Court. Due to unexpected family obligations the past week, counsel has been unable

to complete the brief by the deadline. Therefore, Appellants request a continuance for the

fi ling of the brief of at least 10 days.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellants pray that the due date for the

brief be extened at least 10 days fom Jun e 1 6 , 2015. ACCEPTED

01-15-00124-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

6/16/2015 12:50:22 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKRespectfully submitted,

JASON A. POWERS, ATTORNEY

_________________________________ Jason A. Powers

SBOT 24027745

PO Box 272425

Houston, Texas 77277

Tele: (832) 647

- 8493

Fax: (832) 415

- 0593

jaso n@jasonapowers.com

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT S

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on June 16, 2015 , a true and correct copy of the foregoing

instrument has been sent to all counsel o f record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure.

_________________________________ Jason A. Powers
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.3740 *Streptococcus* spp. serological reagents. ( a ) *Identification. Streptococcus* spp. serological reagents are devices that consist of antigens and antisera (excluding streptococcal exoenzyme reagents made from enzymes secreted by streptococci) used in serological tests to identify *Streptococcus* spp. from cultured isolates derived from clinical specimens. The identification aids in the diagnosis of diseases caused by bacteria belonging to the genus *Streptococcus* and provides epidemiological information on these diseases. Pathogenic streptococci are associated with infections, such as sore throat, impetigo (an infection characterized by small pustules on the skin), urinary tract infections, rheumatic fever, and kidney disease.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 866.9.
[47 FR 50823, Nov. 9, 1982, as amended at 65 FR 2312, Jan. 14, 2000]
#### D. H. R. Construction Company, Inc. *v.*The Ridgefield Corporation et al.

*Lester Katz,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Elliott B. Pollack,*for the appellant (named defendant).

Argued October 7

decided October *7,*1969

The motion by the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County is granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-26-1999
<CASH>                                           3,027
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   59,168
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,101
<INVENTORY>                                     33,175
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                91,264
<PP&E>                                          89,763
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,835
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 343,368
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,431
<BONDS>                                        223,110
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            80
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,902
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   343,368
<SALES>                                        140,366
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               140,366
<CGS>                                           91,227
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   91,227
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,928
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,117
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,399
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,718
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,718
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .61


</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 864
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 864 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 864.5425 Multipurpose system for in vitro coagulation studies. ( a ) *Identification.* A multipurpose system for in vitro coagulation studies is a device consisting of one automated or semiautomated instrument and its associated reagents and controls. The system is used to perform a series of coagulation studies and coagulation factor assays.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). A control intended for use with a multipurpose system for in vitro coagulation studies is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 864.9.
[45 FR 60599, Sept. 12, 1980, as amended at 84 FR 71799, Dec. 30, 2019]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERNESTO ZARAGOSA

- SOLIS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

M. GUTIERREZ, Warden; CHRISTENSEN, Lt.; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; C. NEWLAND, physician assistant; K. MORAN, SIS Technician,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 23

- 15306

D.C. No. 4:22

- cv

- 00562

- JCH

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona John Charles Hinderaker, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2023 * *

Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Ernesto Zaragosa

- Solis appeals pro se from the district

court’s order denying his motion s for a preliminary injunction in his action

alleging various federal claims . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 22 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 23

- 15306

§ 1292(a)(1). We review de novo questions of our own jurisdiction, Hunt v.

Imperial Merchant S

ervs., Inc. , 560 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009), and we

dismiss this appeal as moot.

Zaragosa

- S olis ’s appeal is moot because , during the pendency of this appeal,

Zaragosa

- Solis amended the complaint that formed the basis of the appeal

. S ee

Falck N. Cal

. Corp. v. Scott Griffith Collaborative Sols., LLC , 25 F.4th 763, 765

-

66 (9th Cir. 2022) (holding that the amendment of a complaint on which an

interlocutory appeal is based moots the appeal, even if the amended complaint is

“substantively the same,” becaus e the prior complaint becomes “a legal nullity”);

Akina v. Hawaii , 835 F.3d 1003, 1010 (9th Cir. 2016) (“An interlocutory appeal of

the denial of a preliminary injunction is moot when a court can no longer grant any

effective relief sought in the injunctio n request.”) ; ACF Indus. Inc. v. Cal. State Bd.

of Equalization , 42 F.3d 1286, 1292 (9th Cir. 1994) (dismissing as moot certain

claims on appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction because the claims

were dismissed before the district court while t he appeal was pending).

In light of our disposition, we do not consider Zaragosa

- S olis ’s contentions

regarding the merits of the appeal

.

All pending motions are denied as moot

.

DISMISSED.
Editorial Note on Part 73
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 73 appear at 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001.

§ 73.575 Titanium dioxide. ( a ) *Identity.* ( 1 ) The color additive titanium dioxide is synthetically prepared TiO2, free from admixture with other substances.
( 2 ) Color additive mixtures for food use made with titanium dioxide may contain only those diluents that are suitable and that are listed in this subpart as safe in color additive mixtures for coloring foods, and the following: Silicon dioxide, SiO2 and/or aluminum oxide, Al2 O3, as dispersing aids—not more than 2 percent total.
( b ) *Specifications.* Titanium dioxide shall conform to the following specifications: Lead (as Pb), not more than 10 parts per million. Arsenic (as As), not more than 1 part per million. Antimony (as Sb), not more than 2 parts per million. Mercury (as Hg), not more than 1 part per million. Loss on ignition at 800 °C. (after drying for 3 hours at 105 °C.), not more than 0.5 percent. Water soluble substances, not more than 0.3 percent. Acid soluble substances, not more than 0.5 percent. TiO2, not less than 99.0 percent after drying for 3 hours at 105 °C.
Lead, arsenic, and antimony shall be determined in the solution obtained by boiling 10 grams of the titanium dioxide for 15 minutes in 50 milliliters of 0.5*N* hydrochloric acid.
( c ) *Uses and restrictions.* The color additive titanium dioxide may be safely used for coloring foods generally, subject to the following restrictions: ( 1 ) The quantity of titanium dioxide does not exceed 1 percent by weight of the food.
( 2 ) It may not be used to color foods for which standards of identity have been promulgated under section 401 of the act unless added color is authorized by such standards.
( d ) *Labeling.* The label of the color additive and any mixtures intended solely or in part for coloring purposes prepared therefrom shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( e ) *Exemption from certification.* Certification of this color additive is not necessary for the protection of the public health and therefore batches thereof are exempt from the certification requirements of section 721(c) of the act.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Richard J.Baum, certify that:

 

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Ebix, Inc.;

 

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  | May 15, 2006            | /s/ Richard J. Baum |   |
|--------|-------------------------|---------------------|--------|
|   | Richard J. Baum         |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JAVARES HALL, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D19-645

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed November 13, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Hardee County; Michael E. Raiden, 

Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

NORTHCUTT, CASANUEVA, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
February 1 0 , 201 5

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir or Madam:

Attached please find Skycatch, Inc. ’s request for an exemption from the listed Federal

Aviation Regulations to allow commercial operation of its Small Unmanned Aircraft

Systems (“ sUASs ”) for aerial imaging for safety and monitoring of secured and

controlled environment construction sites. This exemption request is exclusiv ely for the

use of the UAS manufactured by Skycatch, Inc., a San Francisco based company.

Also attached to this letter is the Skycatch UAS Flight Manual, which outlines the

operating requirements, limitations, and technical specifications for the Skycatc h system

. Skycatch submits this manual as a Confidential document under 14 CFR 11.35 (b) as the

entire manual contains proprietary information that the applicant has not and w ill not

share with others. The M anual contains operating conditions and procedur es that are not

available to the public and are protected from release under the Freedom of Information

Act 5 USC 552 et. seq.

Thank you for your time and consideration, and please let me know if you have any

questions.

Sincerely,

Gabriel Dobbs

Di rector of Policy

Skycatch, Inc.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 2224** 

ORLANDO BROWN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Margaret B. Seymour , Senior District Judge. ( 3:12

- cv
- 03062

- MBS )

Submitted : January 23, 2014 Decided: January 27, 2014

Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Orlando Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Robert David Garfield, Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 P ER CURIAM:

Orlando Brown appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affir m for the reasons stated by the district court.

Brown v. Richland Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t , No. 3:12

- cv
- 03062

- MBS
(D.S.C. Sept. 13, 2013) . We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials befor e th is court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED