alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 21.219 Supplies consisting of clothing, magazines and periodicals, and items which may be personally used by the veteran. ( a ) *Furnishing protective articles and clothing.* Protective articles or apparel worn in place of ordinary clothing will be furnished at VA expense, when the school or training establishment requires similarly circumstanced nonveterans to use the articles of apparel. No other clothing will be supplied.
( b ) *Furnishing magazines and periodicals.* Appropriate past issues of magazines, periodicals, or reprints may be furnished in the same manner as text material, when relevant to the course or training.
( c ) *Furnishing items which may be personally used.* Musical instruments, cameras, or other items which could be used personally by the veteran may only be furnished if required by the facility to meet requirements for degree or course completion.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3104(a)(7))
Editorial Note on Part 36
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

§ 36.4700 Authority, purpose, and scope. ( a ) *Authority.* Sections 36.4700 through 36.4709 of this part are issued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4104a, 4104b, 4106, and 4128.
( b ) *Purpose.* The purpose of sections 36.4700 through 36.4709 of this part is to implement the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001-4129).
( c ) *Scope.* Sections 36.4700 through 36.4709 of this part, except for §§ 36.4705 and 36.4707, apply to loans secured by buildings or mobile homes located or to be located in areas determined by the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to have special flood hazards. Sections 36.4705 and 36.4707 apply to loans secured by buildings or mobile homes, regardless of location.
(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4104a, 4104b, 4106, and 4128)
[62 FR 5532, Feb. 6, 1997]
Petition for exemption/rulemaking

I want to petition for the Section 333 exemption, the nature of my request 

is for a special local news story regarding Drones and Public safety and 

for generic city footage of the Fresno Ca. The footage will be used for a 

special news series to raise awareness and will be broadcasted on local 

television.

It is not my intent to sell or trade this footage for any profit or person 

gain. I have reviewed all safety information provided on the FAA website 

and understand all safety concerns.

Thank you for your time

Raul Enriquez
EXHIBIT 31.2                         CERTIFICATION

    I, Joseph M. Harary, President, Treasurer and Chief
Accounting Officer of Research Frontiers Incorporated ("RFI" or
the "Registrant") certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of RFI;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain
any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;

4.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures
to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

(b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; and

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

5.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrant's  auditors and
the audit committee of the registrant's  board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrant's  ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

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

Date: October 28, 2004                /s/ Joseph M. Harary
                                       Joseph M. Harary, President,  Treasurer
                                       and Principal Accounting Officer
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellant,

v. DAVID BARRON, Appellee. ' ' ' ' ' ' No. 08

- 12

- 00245

- CR

Appeal from 210th District Court of El Paso County, Texas (TC # 20120D01101)

MEMORANDUM OPINION This appeal is before the Court to determine whether it has jurisdiction of a notice of

cross - appeal filed by appellee, David Barron. Finding that we do not have jurisdiction, we dismiss the cross

- appeal. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY A jury found Barron guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for twelve years. The trial court imposed sentence on April 24,
2012. Barron timely filed a motion for new trial and the trial court denied that motion by written order s igned on May 31, 2012

. Barron filed notice of appeal on June 1, 2012. That appeal is docketed as David Barron v. The State of Texas , 08

- 12

- 00184

- CR. On July 6, 2012, the trial court signed an order granting Barron’s motion for new trial and the State fi led notice of appeal

. Barron filed notice of cross

- appeal on August 13, 2012. The Clerk of the Court subsequently sent Barron a notice that the Court did not have jurisdiction of the cross

- appeal and would dismiss it absent a response showing grounds it should be continued

. Barron has not filed any response to that letter.

JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER CROSS
- APPEAL- 2

-

The State has appealed the trial court’s order granting a new trial pursuant to Article 44.01(a)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. a rt. 44.01(a)(3 ) (West Supp. 2012 ). We are unaware of any statutes or rules which provide Barron with the right to appeal an order granting him a new trial. Generally, an appellate court only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a final judgment of conviction. Workman v. State , 170 Tex.Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961) ; Bridle v. State , 16 S.W.3d 906, 907 (Tex .App.

- - Fort Worth 2000, no pet.). Barron has already preserved his right to appeal the judgment of conviction by timely filing a separate notice of appeal and that appeal has been abated pending resolution of this appeal. If the State is unsuccessful in this appeal, we will reinstate cause number 08

- 12

- 00184

- CR and dismiss it for want of jurisdiction because there will be no final judgment of conviction to be appealed . If the State is successful, however, and the trial court’s order granting the motion f or new trial is reversed, we will reinstate Barron’s appeal
in cause number 08

- 12

- 00184

- CR and it will proceed. Accordingly, we conclude that a cross appeal in this case is unnecessary to preserve Barron’s right to appe al the judgment of conviction. In t he absence of any statute or authority providing Barron a right to file a cross

appeal, we conclude that the attempted cross

- appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The State’s appeal will proceed.

November 14, 2012

________________________ _______________________ ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Antcliff, JJ. (Do Not Publish)
V 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 240 

For the relief of Alemseghed Mussie Tesfamical. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. KING of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Alemseghed Mussie Tesfamical. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR 

4 ALEMSEGHED MUSSIE TESFAMICAL. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Alemseghed Mussie Tesfamical shall be eligible for 

8 issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 

9 to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi10 dence upon filing an application for issuance of an immi11 grant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment 

12 of status to lawful permanent resident. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 240 IH

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Alemseghed 

2 Mussie Tesfamical enters the United States before the fil3 ing deadline specified in subsection (c), he shall be consid4 ered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 

5 otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status 

6 under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

7 as of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Alemseghed Mussie Tesfamical, the Secretary of 

16 State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, dur17 ing the current or next following fiscal year, the total num18 ber of immigrant visas that are made available to natives 

19 of the country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) 

20 of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, 

21 the total number of immigrant visas that are made avail22 able to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under 

23 section 202(e) of such Act. 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 240 IH

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Alemseghed Mussie 

2 Tesfamical shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be ac3 corded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigra4 tion and Nationality Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### § 18b.91 Improper conduct.

With respect to any proceeding it is improper for any interested person to attempt to sway the judgment of the reviewing authority by undertaking to bring pressure or influence to bear upon the reviewing authority or any officer having a responsibility for a decision in the proceeding, or decisional staff. It is improper that such interested persons or any members of the Department of Veterans Affairs's staff or the presiding officer give statements to communications media, by paid advertisement or otherwise, designed to influence the judgment of any officer having a responsibility for a decision in the proceeding, or decisional staff. It is improper for any person to solicit communications to any such officer, or decisional staff, other than proper communications by parties or amici curiae.

[35 FR 10760, July 2, 1970, as amended at 51 FR 10387, Mar. 26, 1986]
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4255 — Evraz/Strategic Minerals)

(2006/C 209/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 17 August 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      23,916,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             2,200,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 64,421,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      23,986,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        24,247,000
<LOANS>                                    234,271,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,938,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             364,136,000
<DEPOSITS>                                 329,986,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,256,000
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,891,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              31,894,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              5,903,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,409,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                62,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             7,374,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,098,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,119,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        5,255,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  270,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             103,000
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              3,581,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,171,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,171,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,267,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.40
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.41
<LOANS-NON>                                    276,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   211,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,646,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    8,000
<RECOVERIES>                                    30,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,938,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,938,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Field Report 10/19 & 10/20, Central Georgia Erosion & Sediment and Stormwater Quality 

Workshop

By Matt Burns

 The 2 day event in Griffin Georgia on 10/19 & 10/20 produced the following results. The 

background water was pumped from the pond, (Photo 1). The pond was approximately 60 to 80 

ft wide and the same long (square pond). The water was prepared by the City of Griffin 

Stormwater Division. In coming water measured 2189 NTU, using a LaMotte 2020e Turbidity 

Metter, calibrated 9-17-2010 to 1.0 NTU. Background water was very heavy with clay, very 

orange. (Photo 1)

 
 The Stormklear Semi-Active Treatment System was set up (Photo 2) Water was pumped at 

approximately 300 GPM into 3” pump line, into PVC manifold, past Stormklear Dual Bio 

Polymer at the average dose rate of 2.5 PPM. The water measured 433 NTU at the bag after the 

system ran for an estimated 8 to 10 minutes. A second set of socks was added, the average dose 

rate moved to 5 PPM, because of the heavy clay content and time to process water through the 

manifold and present results and action to attendees.
The system was restarted and ran for 15 minutes. The dewatering bag filled very quickly, as the 

picture a show, the dewatering bag was placed on gravel to prevent blinding off on the bottom of 

the bag per manufacturers recommendations. The system produced a heavy filter cake on the 

inside of the bag. (Photo 3, 4, 5) Turbidity measurements were taken at far end of the bag, 73.1 

NTU, and at the center of the bag, the highest point, 50.2 NTU, and at the inlet neck of the bag, 2 

readings 29.1 and 25.1 NTU. I feel the reading at the top of the bag is most accurate 50.2 NTU. 
 

 In review, the system dosed 5.0 PPM, produced NTU reduction from 2189 NTU to 50.2 NTU 

in a 15 minute time frame. 

Background 2189 NTU

8-10 minutes 2.5 PPM, 433 NTU

15 minutes 5.0 PPM, 73.1 NTU, far end of bag

15 minutes 5.0 PPM, 50.2 NTU center of bag

15 minutes 5.0 PPM, 29.1 & 25.1, neck of bag

 In summary, due to the high turbidity levels and the particle size; I would expect the 

dewatering bag efficiency to be very low without the Stormklear Dual Polymer System. Due to 

time constraints, the full dewatering of the bag and additional pumping of water to the point of 

preclusion did not occur. However, in similar set up from MD to FL, the StormKlear Dual 

Polymer System has shown turbidity reduction consistently less than 100 NTUs and as low as 1 

NTU. Full preclusion experiments are being researched at North Carolina State University. The 

Semi-Active Treatment System gives an advantage in footprint, efficiency, and turbidity 

reduction. This is an easy to setup system and can be deployed by a contractor, municipality, or 

erosion-sediment control installer and give consistently good results meeting discharge limits.
---

|CERTIFICATION OF                             
|---------------------------------------------
|CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND                  
|CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER                      
|PURSUANT TO                                  
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,                      
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                       
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Garry L. Anselmo, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
  Officer of Silverado Gold Mines Ltd., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
  that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Silverado Gold Mines Ltd., for the
  quarterly period ending August 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements
  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
  information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents
  in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
  Silverado Gold Mines Ltd.

| | By:    | /s/
      Garry L. Anselmo
| | ------ | --------------------------
| | Name:  | Garry L. Anselmo          
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer   
| |        | Chief Financial Officer   
| | Date:  | October 14, 2005          

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the
Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB 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 Registrant under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
Sherry Radack ChiefJustice Terry Jennings Evelyn Keyes Laura Carter Higley Jane Bland Michael Massengale Harvey Brown Rebeca Huddle Russell Lloyd Justices 

# Court of Appeals First District 301 Fannin Street 

### Houston, Texas 77002-2066 Christopher A. Prine Clerk ofthe Court Janet Williams Chief StaffAttorney
Phone: 713-274-2700 Fax: 713-755-8131 www.txcourts.gov/lstcoa.aspx


### May 12, 2015
Michael William Elliott 905 Front Street Richmond, TX 77469 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * 

### Daniel DeSantiago-Caraza #145761 

### Fort Bend County Jail 

### 1410 Williams Way Blvd Richmond, TX 77469 

### RE: Court of Appeals Number: 01-14-00506-CR Trial Court Case Number: 12-DCR-059524 Style: Daniel DeSantiago-Caraza

v. The State ofTexas 

### John J. Harritylll Assistant District Attorney Fort Bend County 301 Jackson Street Room 101 

### Richmond, TX 77469 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *



### The First Court of Appeals has set the above cause for submission on June 16, 2015 before a panel consisting of ChiefJustice Radack, JusticeHigley andJustice Massengale, subjectto change by the Court. The Court will not hear oral argument. 

### Parties are encouraged to sign up for automated e-mail notices on the "CaseMail" page of the Court's website (http://www.txcourts.gOv/lstcoa). Very truly yours,

C 

### Christopher A. Prine, Clerk ofthe Court

### Court ofAppeals, First District 301 Fannin Street Houston, Texas 77002-2066



### CASE NO. 01-14-00506-CR DANIEL DESANTIAGO-CARAZA #145761 PORT R1"^*,r> />^^1 ,k •••"*' • * ••• 

# 1410WI NIXIE '"'* 5E X -Jtt U.S. POSTAGE» PITNEY BOWES 

# of77,002 *wwi.«t<a> i 0001372104MAY 12 2015

i'3,/2 9/l,S! RICHMC NOT RETURN TO DEL IVE R A.5L.E SENDER AS AD DP. E S 5 E D l!«»o! c -rrt p f>e uj a o r\ BC: 7 7802206699 * 19 3 3-86782-15-43 !'' n 11Ji I!«!! » •»IMl!«! 11 i1 j'|tt"t1' ill!] !]* 1' I *!' 1 '*'1 '!*!•• 1'! I'1 <
41610.

#### SURMIAK v. STANDARD ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

Pannell, Judge.

Upon a prior hearing claimant had been granted an award of 50 percent loss of use of the left leg under *Code*§ 114-406 (o) as amended by the Act of 1955 (Ga. L. 1955, pp. 210, 212) based upon an injury occurring on January 6, 1960, compensation to be paid beginning the week of July 16, 1960. This award also directed the insurer “to pay all medical expenses arising out of said accident not to exceed $1,500 total.” Upon a hearing on change of condition requested by claimant there was testimony by the claimant, her husband, the employer’s manager, and various doctors. *Held:*

1. The evidence was sufficient to authorize a finding that the percentage of loss- of use of the leg had not increased, and the award in this respect is affirmed.

2. There was evidence that medical bills incurred prior to the first hearing and since were still unpaid. The amount and *4extent of these bills was not clear, although the amounts of a few were shown. There was a dispute as to whether some of these expenses were properly incurred. No findings were made as to these matters. The case is therefore remanded for further hearing as to the payment or nonpayment of medical expenses and as to whether such medical expenses not paid were properly incurred.

Argued November 2, 1965

Decided January 19, 1966.

*John P. Nixon,*for plaintiff in error.

*Harris, Bussell & Watkins, Philip B. Taylor,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed in part; reversed in part.*

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