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

#### § 41.45 Appeal forwarding fee.

(a) *Timing.* Appellant in an application or *ex parte* reexamination proceeding must pay the fee set forth in § 41.20(b)(4) within the later of two months from the date of either the examiner's answer, or a decision refusing to grant a petition under § 1.181 of this chapter to designate a new ground of rejection in an examiner's answer.

(b) *Failure to pay appeal forwarding fee.* On failure to pay the fee set forth in § 41.20(b)(4) within the period specified in paragraph (a) of this section, the appeal will stand dismissed.

(c) *Extensions of time.* Extensions of time under § 1.136(a) of this title for patent applications are not applicable to the time period set forth in this section. *See* § 1.136(b) of this title for extensions of time to reply for patent applications and § 1.550(c) of this title for extensions of time to reply for *ex parte* reexamination proceedings.

[78 FR 17107, Mar. 20, 2013]
#### Matthews *v.*The State.

*Assault With Intent to Murder.*

(Decided Feb. 6, 1912.

58 South. 93.)

*Appeal; Judgment; Correction.*— Where the prosecution was for assault with intent to murder, and the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty, and assessing a fine of $125, this was tantamount to an acquittal of the higher offense charged, and hence, a judgment on the verdict pronouncing the defendant guilty of an assault with intent to murder, and taking a confession of judgment for the fine and- costs, was only erroneous in its pronouncement of the grade of the offence as to which the defendant had been found guilty, and hence, can be corrected and will .be corrected on appeal, so as to conform to the verdict of the jury. The judgment was not void for lack of jurisdiction.

Appeal from Madison Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. J. H. Ballentine.

Elijah' Matthews was convicted of an assault and battery, and be appeals.

Corrected and affirmed.

No counsel marked for appellant.

B. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

The verdict showed a conviction of assault and battery, and hence, the judgment was not based upon the verdict, and is improper, and will not support an *appeal.*— Ay*ers v. The State,*71 Ala. 11; *Oomph ell v. The State,*123 Ala- 72; *Bridges v. The State,*124 Ala. 90; *Marks v. The State,*131 Ala. 44.

PELHAM, J.

The appeal in this case is before us on the record. The judgment entry shows the defendant was arraigned on an indictment charging him with an assault with intent to murder, to which he pleaded not guilty. The jury before whom the defendant was *64tried found Mm guilty, and fixed his fine at $125. This was a finding by tlie jury of tlie guilt of the defendant of an assault and battery, and an acquittal of the higher grade of offense included in the indictment. The court upon this verdict entered a judgment ascertaining the defendant guilty of an assault with intent to murder, but did not impose a sentence. The defendant confessed judgment for the fine assessed by the jury ana costs of the prosecution.

Tlie judgment rendered by the court is a legal judgment, in the sense that it is within the jurisdiction of the court and. as referable to the indictment; but the grade of guilt pronounced is unauthorized by the verdict of the jury. It is plain enough, from the indictment, verdict, and confession of judgment, that the judgment of guilt pronounced by the court is only erroneous, in not adjudging the defendant guilty of an assault and battery, to correspond with the jury’s finding of guilt; and as a judgment of conviction has been entered, and the fine and costs confessed, the erroneous ascertainment of the grade of guilt found by the judgment will be here corrected, and, as corrected, the judgment will be affirmed.

Corrected and affirmed.
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2245 

AN ACT 

To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient 

clinic in Wenatchee, Washington, as the Elwood ‘‘Bud’’ 

Link Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2245 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ELWOOD ‘‘BUD’’ LINK DE2 PARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OUT3 PATIENT CLINIC. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Department of Veterans Af5 fairs outpatient clinic located in Wenatchee, Washington, 

6 shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known 

7 and designated as the ‘‘Elwood ‘Bud’ Link Department 

8 of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’. 

9 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, regula10 tion, map, document, record, or other paper of the United 

11 States to the medical center referred to in subsection (a) 

12 shall be considered to be a reference to the Elwood ‘‘Bud’’ 

13 Link Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 26, 2008. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2245 

AN ACT 

To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs 

Affairs Outpatient Clinic. the Elwood ‘‘Bud’’ Link Department of Veterans outpatient clinic in Wenatchee, Washington, as
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM TOFUTTI
BRANDS  INC.'S  REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED APRIL 1, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>




<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    APR-01-2000
<CASH>                                     1,752,000
<SECURITIES>                                 258,000
<RECEIVABLES>                              1,644,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 221,000
<INVENTORY>                                  687,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           4,299,000
<PP&E>                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             4,440,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        964,000
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                      64,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 3,410,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               4,440,000
<SALES>                                    3,025,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           3,025,000
<CGS>                                      1,929,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              1,929,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             724,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (15,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              387,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 157,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          230,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                 230,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                         .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .03



</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 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.

#### § 41.30 Definitions.

In addition to the definitions in § 41.2, the following definitions apply to proceedings under this subpart unless otherwise clear from the context:

*Applicant* means either the applicant in a national application for a patent or the applicant in an application for reissue of a patent.

*Evidence* means something (including testimony, documents and tangible objects) that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact, except that for the purpose of this subpart *Evidence* does not include dictionaries, which may be cited before the Board.

*Owner* means the owner of the patent undergoing *ex parte* reexamination under § 1.510 of this title.

*Proceeding* means either a national application for a patent, an application for reissue of a patent, an *ex parte* reexamination proceeding, or a trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Appeal to the Board in an *inter partes* reexamination proceeding is controlled by subpart C of this part.

*Record* means the items listed in the content listing of the Image File Wrapper of the official file of the application or reexamination proceeding on appeal or the official file of the Office if other than the Image File Wrapper, excluding amendments, Evidence, and other documents that were not entered. In the case of an issued patent being reissued or reexamined, the *Record* further includes the *Record* of the patent being reissued or reexamined.

[69 FR 50003, Aug. 12, 2004, as amended at 76 FR 72296, Nov. 22, 2011; 77 FR 46630, Aug. 6, 2012]
## CHLORINATED OLEFIN PRODUCTS SOLD TO RUBBER INDUSTRY

TRUCK UNLOADING TO STORAGE

(100 kg/batch) RAW RUBBER (900kg/batch)

CUSTOMER PERSONNEL EXPOSURE POINT NO RELEASE POINT OCCURS IN PROCESS CPAR STORAGE FORMULATION MIXING (1,000 kg/batch) RUBBER PRODUCT PROCESSING FINISHED RUBBER PRODUCT X A PRODUCT SOLD FOR RUBBER PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING (20,000kg/truck)
1

Thomas H. Adams, Executive Director 

American Coal Ash Association 

15200 E. Girard Ave., Suite 3050 

Aurora, CO 80014 

720.870.7987 

fax – 720.870.7889 

www.acaa-usa.org 

ACAA 

Memo

To: Mathy Stanislaus, EPA Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

From: Thomas Adams 

CC: Barry Breen, Matt Hale, John Sager 

Date: August 3, 2009 

Re: Sulfate Wars 

During our meeting of July 24, 2009 discussion of the negative impacts of a hazardous waste 

regulation for coal ash disposal on the beneficial use of fly ash in concrete raised interest in litigation 

known within the concrete industry as the “Sulfate Wars”. This litigation was initiated by allegations of 

potential damage on concrete foundations from sulfate attack from soils surrounding those 

foundations. While there were no actual damages proven in any of the cases, several large monetary 

awards went to plaintiffs until one judge eventually ruled in favor of the defendants essentially halting 

litigation under this theory. The concrete industry is fearful of having to defend itself on a much larger 

scale from similar frivolous litigation. 

Two articles describing this litigation from trade publications are available through the following links. 

http://www.concretemonthly.com/monthly/art.php?2331

http://concreteproducts.com/mag/concrete_constructiondefect_lawsuits_justice/
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  quarterly   report  of   Communication   Intelligence
Corporation  (the  "Company")  on Form  10-Q  for  the  quarterly  period  ended
September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Francis V. Dane,  Principal  Financial  Officer,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes
Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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 results of operations of the Company.

Date:   November 13, 2003

By: /s/ Francis V. Dane
          Principal Financial Officer






                                      -25-
#### Julia A. Finegan, Plaintiff, *v.*J. Esler Eckerson, Indivdually and as Executor, Etc., et al., Defendants.

(Supreme Court, Orange Special Term,

March, 1899.)

Beal property — Bight of abutting owner to lateral support of highway — Wrongdoer liable, although not negligent.

An abutting owner is entitled to the lateral support of the highway for her building as against a wrongdoer, and the latter will, in an action for an injunction to restrain further excavation, be compelled to restore the highway.

As any unlawful obstruction of or interference with a highway is *per se*unlawful, negligence in the excavating need not be shown.

Action for an injunction.

Irving Brown, for plaintiff.

R. E. & A. J. Prime (Ralph E. Prime, of counsel), for defendants.

Hirschberg, J.

The plaintiff is the vendee in possession of premises on the southwest corner of Eockland and Jefferson streets in the village of Haverstraw, Eockland county. The defendants *575are owners and tenants of the property adjoining and east of Rock-land street and north of Jefferson street for a considerable distance. The defendants’ property is used for brickyard purposes and was excavated by them shortly before the commencement of this action to a great depth, so that the soil of Rockland and 3 efferson streets, immediately adjacent to the plaintiff’s premises, fell in the excavation made by the defendants, and has been carried away to within a few feet of the plaintiff’s building. This action is brought for an injunction restraining further excavation and for a restoration of the streets.

The decision of the Appellate Division on the appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction, sustains the plaintiff’s right to the relief sought. Einegan v. Eekerson, 32 App. Div. 233. The facts established a special injury, inasmuch as the abutting owner is entitled to access, and a partial destruction of the street deprives the owner of that right *pro tanto.*As a matter of fact access is limited to the use of the sidewalk in front of the premises, the rest of the street having been excavated away. It is evident that further excavation would endanger the plaintiff’s building, and although, as claimed by the defendants, the right to lateral support between adjoining owners does not include the right to the support of an artificial structure, that doctrine has no application to the case of a highway. Milburn v. Fowler, 27 Hun, 568.

The plaintiff is entitled to the lateral support of the highway for her building as against a wrongdoer, and as any unlawful obstruction or interference with a highway is *per se*a nuisance, negligence in the digging need not be shown.

The plaintiff is entitled to an injunction and to the restoration of Rockland and Jefferson streets to the north line of Jefferson street, with costs.

Ordered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-29-2000
<CASH>                                           3,653
<SECURITIES>                                        61
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,335
<ALLOWANCES>                                       437
<INVENTORY>                                     17,674
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,137
<PP&E>                                          16,186
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,541
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,538
<BONDS>                                          5,066
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,769
<OTHER-SE>                                         791
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    42,853
<SALES>                                         44,222
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,222
<CGS>                                           33,142
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,685
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (331)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 313
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,868
<INCOME-TAX>                                       737
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,121
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,121
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .41


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                        5
<MULTIPLIER>                                                     1

<S>                                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                         AUG-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                           APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                                   4,817,000
<SECURITIES>                                                18,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                           16,005,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                              (635,000)
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        20,908,000
<PP&E>                                                   1,741,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                            (931,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          30,332,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    2,390,000
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                     6,000
<OTHER-SE>                                              27,936,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            30,332,000
<SALES>                                                 39,780,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        39,780,000
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           36,512,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        (1,770,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          5,038,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                             1,711,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      3,327,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                             3,327,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                                    .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  .66


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18. U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Parkway Properties, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q forthe period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marshall A. Loeb,Chief Financial Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to my knowledge:

(1)       The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)       The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Marshall A. Loeb

Marshall A. Loeb (*)

Chief Financial Officer

May 5, 2005

 

 

*A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ParkwayProperties, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|