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

House Calendar No. 196

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 147

[Report No. 104–488]

Authorizing the use of the Capitol grounds for the fifteenth annual National

Peace Officers’ Memorial Service.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 5, 1996

Mr. TRAFICANT submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

MARCH 20, 1996

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol grounds for the fifteenth

annual National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR NATIONAL

4 PEACE OFFICERS’ MEMORIAL SERVICE.

5 The National Fraternal Order of Police and its auxil6 iary shall be permitted to sponsor a public event, the fif-
2

•HCON 147 RH

1 teenth annual National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service,

2 on the Capitol grounds on May 15, 1996, or on such other

3 date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and

4 the President pro tempore of the Senate may jointly des5 ignate, in order to honor the 155 law enforcement officers

6 who died in the line of duty during 1995.

7 SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The event authorized to be con9 ducted on the Capitol grounds under section 1 shall be

10 free of admission charge to the public and arranged not

11 to interfere with the needs of Congress, under conditions

12 to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and the

13 Capitol Police Board.

14 (b) EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES.—The National

15 Fraternal Order of Police and its auxiliary shall assume

16 full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident

17 to all activities associated with the event.

18 SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

19 (a) STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.—Subject to the

20 approval of the Architect of the Capitol, the National Fra21 ternal Order of Police and its auxiliary are authorized to

22 erect upon the Capitol grounds such stage, sound amplifi23 cation devices, and other related structures and equip24 ment, as may be required for the event authorized to be

25 conducted on the Capitol grounds under section 1.
3

•HCON 147 RH

1 (b) ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.—The Architect of

2 the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board are authorized

3 to make any such additional arrangements as may be re4 quired to carry out the event.
House Calendar No. 196

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 147

[Report No. 104–488]

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol grounds for the

rial Service.fifteenth annual National Peace Officers’ MemoMARCH 20, 1996

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
----

Guidelines on National Regional aid for 2007-2013 (1) — National regional State aid map: Ireland

(2006/C 292/05)

N 374/2006 — IRELAND

National regional State aid map 1.1.2007-31.12.2013

(Approved by the Commission on 24.10.2006)

----

(1)OJ C 54, 4.3.2006, p. 13.

(2)  For investment projects with eligible expenditure not exceeding EUR 50 million, this ceiling is increased by 10 percentage points for medium sized companies and 20 percentage points for small companies as defined in the Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36). For large investment projects with eligible expenditure exceeding EUR 50 million, this ceiling is subject to adjustment in accordance with paragraph 67 of the Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013.

(3)  This ceiling is increased by 10 percentage points for medium sized companies and 20 percentage points for small companies as defined in the Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36). No aid may be awarded for investment projects with eligible expenditure exceeding EUR 25 million.

----
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of President and Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as Amended





Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted), Bing Yeh, the President and Chief Executive
Officer of Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies
that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005,
to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "Periodic
Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the
10th day of May, 2005.





/s/ Bing Yeh Bing Yeh 
President and Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, has been provided to Silicon
Storage Technology, Inc. and will be retained by Silicon Storage Technology,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not
deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
November 5, 2013

Mr. Mark McIntyre

Mentee, LLC

6771 Perimeter Road

Seattle, WA 98108

Dear Mr. McIntyre :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

part 91, SFAR 87 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can

not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your September 20, 2013 , exemption request on behalf of Mentee, LLC into the

public docket (No. FAA

- 20 13

- 0839 ), bu t we are unable to process your request any further.

The information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed).

For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or se ctions of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your reque st.

• The specific reasons why you need to exercise the privileges of your exemption outside

the United States.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 d ays. We will consider the docket on your request open until we

receive this required information from you. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send

your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the

exemption.

If We Do No t Hear From You

As a result of the furlough last month, the FAA was unable to send this letter in a timely

fashion. However, i f we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket

without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may

call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Thuy Cooper

Acting Manager, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     financial statements for Freedom Tax Credit Plus L.P. and is qualified in
     its entirety by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000854926
<NAME>                        Freedom Tax Credit Plus L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         5,276,089    
<SECURITIES>                                   0            
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0            
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0            
<INVENTORY>                                    0            
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,251,325    
<PP&E>                                         143,536,863  
<DEPRECIATION>                                 27,965,790   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 124,098,487  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          78,328,438   
<BONDS>                                        0            
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0            
<PREFERRED>                                    0            
<COMMON>                                       0            
<OTHER-SE>                                     45,770,049   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   124,098,487  
<SALES>                                        0            
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6,557,840    
<CGS>                                          0            
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0            
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6,612,907    
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0            
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,511,137    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,566,204)  
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0            
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0            
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0            
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0            
<CHANGES>                                      0            
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,566,204)  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (34.42)      
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0            
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 146 (Friday, July 31, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 38192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18362]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Request for Additional Information

    The Commission gives notice that it has formally requested that the 
parties to the below listed agreement provide additional information 
pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 40304(d). This action prevents the agreement from 
becoming effective as originally scheduled.
    Agreement No.: 011584-007.
    Title: NYK/WWL/NSCSA/Cooperative Working Agreement.
    Parties: Nippon Yusen Kaisha; Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics AS; 
and the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: July 28, 2009.
Karen V. Gregory,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18362 Filed 7-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Ex parte Julio Baquedano

- Cardenas

, * From the County Court at Law No. 1

o f Taylor County,

Trial Court No

. 1

- 430

- 20

No. 11

- 20

- 00 171

- CR * May 12

, 20 2 2

* Memorandum Opinion by Trotter , J

. (P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion, the

order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
39409.

#### VANDIVER, Governor v. WILLIAMS et al.

*436Decided July 3, 1962

Rehearing denied July 27, 1962.

*Eugene Cook, Attorney General, Carter Goode, Donald E. Pay-ton, Richard L. Chambers, Assistant Attorneys General,*for plaintiff in error.

*William Hall, William L. Norton,*contra.

Eberharbt, Judge.

It seems to us that beyond any peradventure the State Revenue Commissioner is a law enforcement officer within the meaning of the provisions of *Code Ann.*§ 56-1201 (4), requiring that suits on the surety bonds of “a sheriff, or other arresting or law enforcement officer . . . shall be instituted in the county of the residence of such officer, and not in any other county. . *.”*He is empowered, inter alia, to seize and sell property under *Code Ann.*§§ 58-915, 58-921, 58-1021, 58-1067, 92-2215, 92-2225, 92-3434a and other sections, to make and promulgate rules and regulations for the *437enforcement of the alcoholic beverage control laws *(Code Ann.*§§ 58-1012, 58-1022), and for the enforcement of income tax laws *(Code*§ 92-3005), the sales tax laws *(Code Ann.*§ 92-3438a), and to do many other things which in their nature, are a part of the process of enforcing laws the administration of which is delegated to him. The several statutes use the terms “enforce,” “to enforce” and “enforcement” many times when referring to actions or things authorized or required to be done by him. Consequently, the provisions of *Code Ann.*§ 56-1201 (4) are applicable to suits brought against the State Revenue Commissioner and the surety on his bond.

All other rulings herein are pursuant to the answers made by the Supreme Court to certified questions which we submitted. *Vandiver v.*Williams, 218 Ga, 60 (126 SE2d 210).

*Judgment reversed.*

Carlisle, *P. J., and Bussell, J., concur.*
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Donald E. Hunt

Argued July 2

decided July *2,*1968

*James W. Marshall,*for the appellant (defendant).

*David B. Salzman,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

Counsel having appeared before this court in response to its order of June 25, 1968, and having stated their views on the need for a reargument of the appeal, it is ordered that, at a time to be set by this court, the appeal be reargued in the light of *Bruton*v. *United States,*391 U.S. 123, 88 S. Ct. 1620, 20 L. Ed. 2d 476, and *Roberts*v. *Russell,*392 U.S. 293, 88 S. Ct. 1921, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1100, and that the defendant and the state file simultaneous briefs on or before October 1, 1968.
IV

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 1

Recognizing the sacrifice and courage of Army Warrant Officers David

Hilemon and Bobby W. Hall II, whose helicopter was shot down over

North Korea on December 17, 1994.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5 (legislative day, JANUARY 4), 1995

Mr. SPENCE (for himself, Mrs. THURMAN, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. MCCOLLUM,

Mr. RICHARDSON, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. GOSS, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida,

Mr. DEUTSCH, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. PETERSON of Florida, Mrs. FOWLER,

Mr. CANADY, Mr. SHAW, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mr.

MILLER of Florida, Mr. BROWN of Florida, Mr. YOUNG of Florida, Mr.

SCARBOROUGH, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. FOLEY, and Mr. WELDON of

Florida) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on National Security

JANUARY 5 (legislative day, JANUARY 4), 1995

Committee on National Security discharged; considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Recognizing the sacrifice and courage of Army Warrant Officers David Hilemon and Bobby W. Hall II, whose helicopter was shot down over North Korea on December

17, 1994.

Whereas on December 17, 1994, the helicopter of Army Chief

Warrant Officer David Hilemon and Army Chief Warrant

Officer Bobby W. Hall II was shot down over North

Korea;
2

•HCON 1 ATH

Whereas as a result of this incident, Chief Warrant Officer

Hilemon sacrificed his life for his country and Chief Warrant Officer Hall was taken captive by the Korean People’s Army;

Whereas on December 22, 1994, Chief Warrant Officer

Hilemon’s remains were returned to the United States at

the Demilitarized Zone at Panmunjom and on December

28, 1994, he was laid to rest with full military honors

and in full view of Mt. Ranier in the State of Washington, in accordance with the wishes of Chief Warrant Officer Hilemon; and

Whereas Chief Warrant Officer Hall, held in captivity for 13

days under stressful circumstances, served his country

above and beyond the call of duty: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) recognizes the sacrifice of Army Chief War4 rant Officer David Hilemon to his country and ex5 presses gratitude for his selflessness and deepest re6 gret for his loss to his family; and

7 (2) recognizes the exceptional service of Army

8 Chief Warrant Officer Bobby W. Hall II to his coun9 try and expresses commendation for his courage.

Æ
### NUMBER 13

- 23

- 00 458

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

SERGIO CHAVEZ AND

MARIA D. GARCIA

, Appellant s

,

v.

ALEJANDRO MORENO

, Appellee.

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

of Hidalgo C ounty, Texas.



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras

On October 25, 2023, appellants filed a notice of appeal. On October 26, 2023, the

Clerk of the Court notified appellants that their notice of appeal was not in compliance

with the Texas Rule of Appellant Procedure 9.1(c)(1). See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

.2 9.1(c)(1). Appellants were also asked to remit the $205.00 filing fee within ten days from

the date of the notice.

On November 15, 2023, the Clerk of the Court again notified appellants of the

defects and that they were delinquent in remitting a $205. 00 filing fee. The Clerk of this

Court notified appellants the appeal was subject to dismissal if the filing fee was not paid

within ten days from the date of the notice. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c).

Furthermore, the clerk’s record was due on December 18, 202 3. On January 2,

2024, the Clerk of the Court notified appellants that the deputy district clerk, Sarah Reyes,

informed the Court that appellants failed to make arrangements for payment of the

clerk’s record. Appellants were notified that unless they made arrangements to pay for

the clerk’s record and proof of payment was provided to the Court within ten days, the

appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. See id. R. R. 37.3(b).

Appellants have not cured the defective notice of appeal, paid t he filing fee, and

no clerk’s record has been filed due to appellants’ failure to pay or make payment

arrangements. Additionally, appellants have failed to comply with a notice from the Clerk

of the Court requiring a response or other action within the tim e specified; accordingly,

the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. R. 42.3(b),(c).

DORI CONTRERAS

Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the

1st d ay of February, 2024.
§ 1.544-7 Option rule in lieu of family and partnership rule. ( a ) If, in determining the ownership of stock, such stock may be considered as constructively owned by an individual by an application of either the family and partnership rule (section 544(a)(2)) or the option rule (section 544(a)(3)), such stock shall be considered as owned constructively by the individual by reason of the application of the option rule.
( b ) The application of this section may be illustrated by the following example:
Example. Two brothers, A and B, each own 10 percent of the stock of the M Corporation, and A's wife, AW, also owns 10 percent of the stock of such corporation. AW's husband, A, has an option to acquire the stock owned by her at any time. It becomes necessary, for one of the purposes stated in section 544(a)(4), to determine the stock ownership of B in the M Corporation. If the family and partnership rule were the only rule that applied in the case, B would be considered, under that rule, as owning 20 percent of the stock of the M Corporation, namely, his own stock plus the stock owned by his brother. In that event, B could not be considered as owning the stock held by AW since (1) AW is not a member of B's family and (2) the constructive ownership of such stock by A through the application of the family and partnership rule in his case is not considered as actual ownership so as to make B the constructive owner by a second application of the same rule with respect to the ownership of the stock. However, there is more than the family and partnership rule involved in this example. As the holder of an option upon the stock, A may be considered the constructive owner of his wife's stock by the application of the option rule and without reference to the family relationship between A and AW. If A is considered as owning the stock of his wife by application of the option rule, then such constructive ownership by A is regarded as actual ownership for the purpose of applying the family and partnership rule so as to make another member of A's family, for example, B, the constructive owner of the stock. Hence, since A may be considered as owning his wife's stock by applying either the family-partnership rule or the option rule, the provisions of section 544(a)(6) apply and accordingly A must be considered the constructive owner of his wife's stock under the option rule rather than the family-partnership rule. B thus becomes the constructive owner of 30 percent of the stock of the M corporation, namely, his own 10 percent, A's 10 percent, and AW's 10 percent constructively owned by A as the holder of an option on the stock.
c

Honi .Staphen P. aounty Aittornsy **DaWitt Comity**  **Ouaro, Texas**  De&r Sir: **OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  **,4L 514~**  **sd g33** 

February 16, 1939

**Your** letter of in whioh you dea opinion as ~to

wh iWing to puroha **tween** $1,500.00 sor oonpstltivs haa been reoaived furnish you an ionem' **Court,** dsing poabably **be hsve**  to advertise

the lowest and best bid.,.," peotfullyattaoh hereto a copy of Hon. an **opin** Joe Sharp, AssistantAttorneyGeneral, addressad to Hon. Alwln 2. Paps, County **Attorney,** I'iaguih, Texas, under date of Soptamber14, 1937, whioh answera, **BO** doubt, the identioal**queetion aa**  oontsinedin your letter. It appears, thsrefore,that this Departmenthas oonalatently

hold that road maohinsry oomas under the terms**Hon.** Stephen P. **liebert,** Fsbruery 16, 1939, Page 2

and within the meaning of said statuteand that the phrase *rupplleeof every kind" would lnalude euoh road mtohlnsry 4s mentioned.

It is, therefore,the opinion of this Department that in the purohaee of a road traatoras outlined In your letter that fmme ahouldbe adrertiaedfor oompetltivs blda, as provided in the above statute. Very truly yours ATTORt?EY

GENERAL@F TEXAS BY in-3 ant

APPROVED: '

**ATTORXiT** GXNERALOP TEXAS