alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### §§ 1.331-1.334 [Reserved]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
NOz BART 24-Hour Short Term Emission Rates 

at the Packaging Corporation of America 

Valdosta, Georgia Mill 

#3 Recovery Furnace Stack 

E \CLent Rl&CA\VaIdasta\BARmART E 

#3RFS 

- 

Non-Condensable Gas Incinerator Stack 

Total 24-hr Maximum Actual 

Maximum Actual Hourly Average 

Total 3-hr Maximum Actual 

Maximum Actual Hourly Average 

324.8 

P 

NCGIS 

MMBtuhr 

I 

Total 24-hr Maximum Actual 

Maximum Actual Hourly Average 

Total 3-hr Maximum Actual 

Maximum Actual ~ourly Average 

I 

3.03 

473.00 

3.95 

3-hr Maximum Actual and 24-hr Maximum Actual 

71 0.83 Total cmlsstons summed over 24-hours of 21 hours of 081 and 3 hours of natural g. 

firing 

emwsions bared on fuel otl finng for 21-Ins and natural gas finng 

Mgal for 2-hr 

Tons BLS/hr*22hr 

Mga1/24-hr 

& IbIADTUBP 

101.52 

33.84 

47 

0.1 

47 

1550 

4-26 

Total emlu,ons summed over 3-hours of ocl Gnng 

Hourly average emlssrons based on fuel oll firing for 3-hrs 

Ib/Mgal#6 Fuel Oil 

IbiMMBtu 

IbiMgal#6 Fuel Oil 

ADTP per da 

142.41 

548.68 

691.09 

28-80 

144.56 

48.19 

14-85 

a:'i$$k$$!&,r& ; 

6.07 

;;r,i.?@&& @ , 

based on BLS hng for 22-hn and otl finng for 2-hrr 

Ibh and dsu: em~u~on rates for 24-hour alr qual~ty modet>ng 

based on BLS linng for I-hr and od fimg for 2-hrs 

Ib& and dsee emlsslon rater for )-hour ar qualrly modellng 

based on the maxtmum dally total ~ecovery Furnace fuel usage of 238 5 bbVday 

and umg a rauo of the heat lnpuls to dmnbutc fuel usage 

Ibh and glref emisstan ,ales ffor 24-hour as quality modellug
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-02-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-04-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-02-1996
<CASH>                                           3,391
<SECURITIES>                                        65
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,690
<ALLOWANCES>                                       320
<INVENTORY>                                     12,586
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,536
<PP&E>                                          14,993
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,715
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,130
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,908
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,769
<OTHER-SE>                                         734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,130
<SALES>                                         17,141
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,141
<CGS>                                           12,579
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,579
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    51
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,477
<INCOME-TAX>                                       587
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       890
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
41599.

#### L. F. DOMMERICH & COMPANY v. PHILLIPS SALES COMPANY, INC.

Argued November 2, 1965

Decided November 8, 1965.

Eberhakdt, Judge.

1. The first grant of a new trial is reviewable only if it was granted *solely*on one or more special grounds of the motion for new trial. *Code Ann.*§ 6-1608.

2. Though a ground of an amendment to a motion for new trial is designated as “Special Ground No. 4,” if it appears that it is no more than an elaboration of the general grounds, or one of them, it is itself a general ground.

3. A ground designated as a special ground, reciting that the verdict was “inconsistent, for an improper amount, contrary to the evidence and showed bias or corruption on the part of the jury” is but an elaboration of a general ground, and this even though there is a recital of all of the pleadings and evidence by which it is claimed this ground is supported.

4. The first grant of a new trial specifically upon this “Special Ground No. 4” and another designated as “Special Ground No. 5” in which there was complaint of error in the charge to the jury is not reviewable, for the grant was not *solely*on a *special*ground.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*

*622*Tarleton & Zion, John J. Tarleton, William W. Barham,*for appellant.

*Sheats, Parker & Webb, John Tye Ferguson,*for appellee.
Exhibit 32.1


                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of QMed Inc. (the "Company"),
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Michael W. Cox, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company and William T. Schmitt, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to his knowledge:

         (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/ Michael W. Cox
----------------------------
Michael W. Cox
Chief Executive Officer
July 05, 2005



/s/ William T. Schmitt, Jr.
----------------------------
William T. Schmitt, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer
July 05, 2005

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to QMed Inc. and will be retained by QMed Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
### COMPLETE APV SYSTEM

DO NOT FLY OVER CROWDS! DO NOT FLY NEAR AIRPORTS! MAX 8000ft THE MAXIMUM FLYING ALTITUDE FOR THIS AIRCRAFT IS 8000FT ABOVE SEA LEVEL! 100  ̊ SAFE FLIGHT REQUIRES A MINIMUM CLEARANCE OF 100  ̊ FROM SURROUNDING BUILDINGS BEFORE LIFT-OFF! KEEP CLEAR OF THE SPINNING PROPELLERS! DO NOT FLY IN WINDS THAT EXCEED 12 MPH (19 KPH)!
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.1

                            OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

                            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 OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Colin
Goddard, Ph.D., 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:

(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.

Date:  August 13, 2003                  /s/ Colin Goddard, Ph.D.
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Colin Goddard, Ph.D.
                                        Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000728391
<NAME> IPALCO ENTERPRISES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,771,475
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    112,787
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         103,783
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       160,751
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,148,796
<COMMON>                                       392,190
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            498,192
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 490,483
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     51,898
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,033,416
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               6,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   30,200
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 536,799
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,148,796
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      379,002
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            36,297
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     259,124
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     295,421
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         83,581
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               3,426
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  87,007
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        29,815
<NET-INCOME>                                    57,192
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      1,591
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   57,192
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        35,363
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         124,331
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.11
        


</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 2.133 Amendment of application or registration during proceedings.

(a) An application subject to an opposition may not be amended in substance nor may a registration subject to a cancellation be amended or disclaimed in part, except with the consent of the other party or parties and the approval of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or upon motion granted by the Board.

(b) If, in an *inter partes* proceeding, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board finds that a party whose application or registration is the subject of the proceeding is not entitled to registration in the absence of a specified restriction to the application or registration, the Board will allow the party time in which to file a motion that the application or registration be amended to conform to the findings of the Board, failing which judgment will be entered against the party.

(c) Geographic limitations will be considered and determined by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board only in the context of a concurrent use registration proceeding.

(d) A plaintiff's pleaded registration will not be restricted in the absence of a counterclaim to cancel the registration in whole or in part, except that a counterclaim need not be filed if the registration is the subject of another proceeding between the same parties or anyone in privity therewith.

[54 FR 37597, Sept. 11, 1989, as amended at 72 FR 42263, Aug. 1, 2007]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas May 17, 2022
No. 04-22-00237-CV Rita DIAZ and A/N/F of Roxanna Gonzalez, Rita Gonzalez and Rolando Gonzalez Jr., Appellant

v. Gregorio LOPEZ , Appellee From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CVA000591-D4 Honorable David E. Garcia, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R On March 23, 2018, Appellee Gregorio Lopez filed an original petition for bill of review in a negligence action, requesting a default judgment be set aside or vacated. On April 22, 2022, the trial court signed an order granting Lopez’s petition for bill of review. On April 22, 2022, Appellant Rita Diaz filed a notice of appeal, stating she intends to appeal the trial court’s order granting Lopez’s bill of review.
In Jordan v. Jordan , the Texas Supreme Court held a trial court’s order granting a bill of review, but not disposing of the case on the merits, is interlocutory and not appealable. 907 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex. 1995). Thus, the Supreme Court held the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. See id. ; see also Kiefer v. Touris , 197 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2006). In this case, the clerk’s record reflects the trial court granted the bill of review, thus setting aside the default judgment. However, nothing in the clerk’s record reflects the trial court entered a final judgment disposing of the case on the merits. It appears the trial court’s order is interlocutory and not appealable. We, therefore, ORDER Appellant Rita Diaz to show cause in writing by June 1, 2022 why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 17th day of May, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1925 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a separate Veterans 

Integrated Service Network for the Gulf Coast region of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 18, 2007 

Mr. MILLER of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a 

separate Veterans Integrated Service Network for the 

Gulf Coast region of the United States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF GULF COAST VETERANS 

4 INTEGRATED SERVICE NETWORK. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

6 shall establish a separate Veterans Affairs Service Net7 work (in this Act referred to as a ‘‘VISN’’) for the Gulf 

8 Coast region of the United States, to comprise the fol9 lowing counties: 


ccoleman on PRODPC74 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1925 IH

1 (1) In the State of Florida, the counties of 

2 Franklin, Liberty, Gulf, Calhoun, Jackson, Bay, 

3 Washington, Holmes, Walton, Okaloosa, Santa 

4 Rosa, and Escambia. 

5 (2) In the State of Alabama, the counties of 

6 Houston, Henry, Dale, Geneva, Coffee, Covington, 

7 Conecuh, Escambia, Monroe, Baldwin, Clarke, Mo8 bile, and Washington. 

9 (3) In the State of Mississippi, the counties of 

10 Jackson, George, Harrison, Stone, Hancock, and 

11 Pearl River. 

12 (b) DEADLINE FOR ESTABLISHMENT.—The Sec13 retary shall establish the VISN specified in subsection (a) 

14 not later than one year after the date of the enactment 

15 of this Act. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC74 with BILLS
NO. 07-03-0420-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	JULY 25, 2005

	______________________________

	ROBERT WENDELL MAY, II, 

										Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

										Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 140TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 92-415,986; HON. JOHN FORBIS, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	Memorandum Opinion

	_______________________________

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

	Appellant Robert Wendell May, II, appeals from a judgment revoking his probation and sentencing him to ten years confinement.  Through three issues, he challenges the trial court’s decision to impose upon him a prison term of ten years, i.e. the same term originally assessed before being granted probation.  We overrule each issue and affirm the judgment.

	The trial court found that appellant violated three conditions of his community supervision.  The first directed him to avoid injurious or vicious habits, while the second and third pertained to his need to report monthly and complete counseling, respectively.  Appellant does not question that he failed to comply with the second condition and concedes that such would permit the trial court to revoke his community supervision.  We agree with appellant; such would permit the trial court to do so.  See Pierce v. State, 67 S.W.3d 374, 377 (Tex. App.–Waco 2001, pet. ref’d) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking appellant’s probation after concluding that he failed to report per the terms of his probation).

	Once the trial court decided to revoke, it had the option to either dispose of the case as if appellant had never been granted community supervision or “if the judge determines that the best interests of society and the defendant would be served by a shorter term of confinement, reduce the term” to a period not less than the minimum statutorily prescribed for the offense.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art 42.12, §23(a) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05).  This meant that it could impose the sentence originally assessed, Guzman v. State, 923 S.W.2d 792, 799 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1996, no pet.).  Moreover, imposing the sentence originally assessed does not evince an abuse of discretion.  Id.; see Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (stating that the amount of punishment to impose lies within the trial court’s discretion).  So, because appellant at bar was originally sentenced to a ten-year prison term, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing a like term upon revoking his probation.  In short, we refuse to hold that the trial court abused its discretion in doing that allowed by statute.

	Accordingly, appellant’s issues are overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

							Brian Quinn 

						          Chief Justice

Do not publish.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2127 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 311
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2127

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 19, 2007

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

                             August 1, 2007

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 408 West 6th Street in Chelsea, Oklahoma, as the ``Clem Rogers 
                   McSpadden Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. CLEM ROGERS MCSPADDEN POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 408 West 6th Street in Chelsea, Oklahoma, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Clem Rogers McSpadden Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Clem 
Rogers McSpadden Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 311

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2127

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 408 West 6th Street in Chelsea, Oklahoma, as the ``Clem Rogers 
                   McSpadden Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             August 1, 2007

                       Reported without amendment
```