alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J A C I N T O P E R E Z - O R T I Z , a .k .a . J a c in to O rt i z P er ez , D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 09- 10445 D . C. N o . 4 : 0 8 - c r - 0 0 3 5 1 - RCC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona R ane rC . C ol l i ns , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B e f o r e : O ’S C A N N L A I N , T A L L M A N , an dB E A , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . J a c in to P e r e z - O rtiz ap p e a ls f r o m h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n a n d6 3 - m o n th s e n te n c e f

o rille g a l r e - e n trya f

te rd e p o rta tio n , in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 . P ur s ua ntt o A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 38 6 U . S . 73 8 (19 67 ), P er ez -O rt i z’ s c ou nselhas 

# FI LED OC T 29 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 10445 2 fi l ed a bri ef

st at i ng there ar e no g roun ds for r el i ef , al on g w i th a m ot i on t o w i thd raw as coun se l of re cord. W e have provi ded the appel l antw i th the op po rtun i ty t o fi l e a pro se s up pl em ent albri ef . N o p ro se supp l em ent albri ef or answ er i ng bri ef

has be e n f i l e d. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o a r g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. A cco rd i n g l y, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , and the di stri ct co u rt ’ s j u d g m en ti s A FFI R M ED .
§ 1012.239 Hearings—notice of proceedings pursuant to exemptions. ( a ) A developer, upon receipt of a notice of proceedings issued under §§ 1010.14, 1010.15, and 1010.16 of this chapter, may obtain a hearing by filing a written request contained in the notice of proceedings. The request must be filed within 15 days of receipt of the notice of proceedings and must be accompanied by an answer conforming to the requirements of § 1081.201(b) and (c).
( b ) When a hearing is requested pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, such hearing shall be held within 45 days of receipt of this request. The time and place for the hearing shall be fixed with due regard for the public interest and the convenience and necessity of the parties of their representatives.
( c ) Failure to answer within the time allowed by paragraph (a) of this section, or failure to appear at a duly scheduled hearing shall result in an appropriate order under § 1010.14, § 1010.15, or § 1010.16 of this chapter terminating the developer's exemption. The order shall be effective as of the date of service or receipt.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 06-314.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and INDIA 

Signed at Washington October 17, 2005 

with 

Annexes 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
INDIA 

Scientific Cooperation 

 Agreement signed at Washington October 17, 2005; 

 Entered into force March 14, 2006. 

 With annexes.
# C_2021365EN.01000201.xml

| 10.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 365/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 365/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

9 September 2021

(2021/C 365/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1838 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,10 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4362 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85555 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,1863 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0861 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 150,80 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,2648 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,398 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 350,88 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5335 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9466 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 10,0272 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6035 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5002 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,2072 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6617 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5901 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 382,73 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,7458 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6402 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4859 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 858,46 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9123 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,085 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 86,2760 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,687 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,2670 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,5363 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 87,0705 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1838

JPY

Japanese yen

130,10

DKK

Danish krone

7,4362

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85555

SEK

Swedish krona

10,1863

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0861

ISK

Iceland króna

150,80

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,2648

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,398

HUF

Hungarian forint

350,88

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5335

RON

Romanian leu

4,9466

TRY

Turkish lira

10,0272

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6035

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5002

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,2072

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6617

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5901

KRW

South Korean won

1 382,73

ZAR

South African rand

16,7458

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6402

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4859

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 858,46

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9123

PHP

Philippine peso

59,085

RUB

Russian rouble

86,2760

THB

Thai baht

38,687

BRL

Brazilian real

6,2670

MXN

Mexican peso

23,5363

INR

Indian rupee

87,0705

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
§ 1022.70 Scope. ( a ) *Coverage* — ( 1 ) *In general.* This subpart applies to any person, except for a person excluded from coverage of this part by section 1029 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 137, that both: ( i ) Uses a consumer report in connection with an application for, or a grant, extension, or other provision of, credit to a consumer that is primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; and
( ii ) Based in whole or in part on the consumer report, grants, extends, or otherwise provides credit to the consumer on material terms that are materially less favorable than the most favorable material terms available to a substantial proportion of consumers from or through that person.
( 2 ) *Business credit excluded.* This subpart does not apply to an application for, or a grant, extension, or other provision of, credit to a consumer or to any other applicant primarily for a business purpose.
( b ) *Enforcement.* The provisions of this subpart will be enforced in accordance with the enforcement authority set forth in sections 621(a) and (b) of the FCRA.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 3, 2013

d0826

Order 

Clerk

September 3, 2013

146864(6)

VINCENT BURGESS,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 146864

AGC: 1353-13

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION,

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s May 28, 2013 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

April 26, 2024 SC-2024-0141 Ex parte Lewis Donterrio Wright PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Lewis Donterrio Wright v. State of Alabama) (Mobile Circuit Court: CC-18- 5087; Criminal Appeals: CR-2022-0990).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was entered in this cause on April 26, 2024: Writ Denied. No Opinion. Sellers, J. -- Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, Stewart, Mitchell, and Cook, JJ., concur. Parker, C.J., concurs in the result. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10751

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Xavier Dewayne Cunningham, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:22-CR-101-1

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit 

Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Xavier Dewayne 

Cunningham has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cunningham has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 11, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10751 Document: 41-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2024
No. 23-10751

2

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to file a supplemental Anders brief is DENIED, counsel’s

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from 

further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th 

Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 23-10751 Document: 41-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2024
October 27, 1998 

       Securities and Exchange Commission 
       450 Fifth Street, N.W. 
       Washington, D.C. 20549 

            Re:  Vitro Diagnostics, Inc. 
                    Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending July 31, 1998
                    SEC file no.  0-17378 

       Dear Sir or Madam:

       Transmitted herewith through the EDGAR system is Form 10-QSB for the 
quarter ended July 31, 1998 for Vitro Diagnostics, Inc.  Should you have 
any questions or comments concerning this matter please contact the 
undersigned at 303-794-2000.



       Sincerely, 



       Roger Hurst 
       President 


<PAGE>
§ 1022.41 Definitions. For purposes of this subpart and appendix E of this part, the following definitions apply: ( a ) *Accuracy* means that information that a furnisher provides to a consumer reporting agency about an account or other relationship with the consumer correctly: ( 1 ) Reflects the terms of and liability for the account or other relationship;
( 2 ) Reflects the consumer's performance and other conduct with respect to the account or other relationship; and
( 3 ) Identifies the appropriate consumer.
( b ) *Direct dispute* means a dispute submitted directly to a furnisher (including a furnisher that is a debt collector) by a consumer concerning the accuracy of any information contained in a consumer report and pertaining to an account or other relationship that the furnisher has or had with the consumer.
( c ) *Furnisher* means an entity that furnishes information relating to consumers to one or more consumer reporting agencies for inclusion in a consumer report. An entity is not a furnisher when it: ( 1 ) Provides information to a consumer reporting agency solely to obtain a consumer report in accordance with sections 604(a) and (f) of the FCRA;
( 2 ) Is acting as a “consumer reporting agency” as defined in section 603(f) of the FCRA;
( 3 ) Is a consumer to whom the furnished information pertains; or
( 4 ) Is a neighbor, friend, or associate of the consumer, or another individual with whom the consumer is acquainted or who may have knowledge about the consumer, and who provides information about the consumer's character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living in response to a specific request from a consumer reporting agency.
( d ) *Integrity* means that information that a furnisher provides to a consumer reporting agency about an account or other relationship with the consumer: ( 1 ) Is substantiated by the furnisher's records at the time it is furnished;
( 2 ) Is furnished in a form and manner that is designed to minimize the likelihood that the information may be incorrectly reflected in a consumer report; and
( 3 ) Includes the information in the furnisher's possession about the account or other relationship that the Bureau has: ( i ) Determined that the absence of which would likely be materially misleading in evaluating a consumer's creditworthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living; and
( ii ) Listed in section I(b)(2)(iii) of appendix E of this part.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 05-1119 

________________________________________________________________________ 

EDUCATION 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and MONGOLIA 

Signed at Ulaanbaatar May 26, 2004 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 MONGOLIA 

 Education 

 Agreement signed at Ulaanbaatar May 26, 2004; 

 Entered into force November 19, 2005.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CHRIS D. MATTHEWS,

1

Petitioner-Below, 

Appellant,

v.

NOELLE HARRIS-MATTHEWS,

Respondent-Below, 

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 277, 2020

Court Below: Family Court 

of the State of Delaware

File No. CN01-10303

Petition No. 19-06252 

Submitted: June 23, 2021

Decided: July 15, 2021

Before VAUGHN, TRAYNOR, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices.

O R D E R

This 15th day July 2021, the Court having considered this matter after oral 

argument and on the briefs filed by the parties has determined that the final judgment 

of the Family Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned 

by the Family Court in its order dated July 27, 2020.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the 

Family Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.

Justice

1 The Court previously assigned a pseudonym to the Appellant under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 05-1122.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

CIVIL AVIATION 

Transport Services 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 

Signed at Washington November 22, 2005 

 

 with 

 

Annexes 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 

Civil Aviation: Transport Services 

 Agreement signed at Washington November 22, 2005; 

 Entered into force November 22, 2005. 

 With annexes.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CKX, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Thomas P. Benson, Executive Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

**Dated:  August 8, 2006**

|   |   | By:    |   | /S/ THOMAS P. BENSON                                     |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | Thomas P. Benson                                         |
|   |   |   |   | *Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President  and* |
|   |   |   |   | *Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)*                |

 

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Qpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form with the electronicversion of this written statement required by Section 906, has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

42

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 5, 2021

No. 04-21-00111-CV

Lisa FLORES,

Appellant

v.

Mario DE LA OSSA and Navy Federal Credit Union,

Appellees

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-CI-24502

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

After we granted two motions for extension of time to file Appellant’s brief, the brief was 

due on September 7, 2021. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a), (d). 

On September 15, 2021, after the deadline passed and no brief was filed, we ordered 

Appellant to file the brief and a motion for extension of time to file the brief by September 27, 

2021, or we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

On September 27, 2021, Appellant filed the brief and a motion for extension of time to 

file the brief. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is deemed timely filed.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of October, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
Charge Questions

AEATF Liquid Pour Completed Study (AEA05)

Study Title : “A Study for Measurement of Potential Dermal and Inhalation Exposure during Manual Pouring of a Liquid Containing an Antimicrobial”

1. Was the research reported in the Antimicrobial Exposure Assessment Task Force II (AEATF) completed liquid pour study report (AEA05) faithful to the design and objectives of the protocol and governing documents of AEATF?

2. Has EPA adequately characterize d, from a scientific perspective, the limitations on these data that should be considered when using the da ta in estimating the exposure of people who pour liquid antimicrobial pesticide products?

3. Does available information support a dete rmination that the study was conducted in substantial compliance with subpa rts K and L of 40 CFR Part 26?
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2615 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2615

To amend title 10, United States Code, to repeal the limitation on the 
authority of the Department of Defense to issue security clearances for 
                            certain persons.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2007

 Mr. Cummings introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to repeal the limitation on the 
authority of the Department of Defense to issue security clearances for 
                            certain persons.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
              TO ISSUE SECURITY CLEARANCES.

    (a) Repeal.--Section 986 of title 10, United States Code, is 
repealed.
    (b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 49 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to 
section 986.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 1249.18 Liability of Enterprises and Federal Reserve Banks.

An Enterprise and the Federal Reserve Banks may rely on the information provided in a Transfer Message, and are not required to verify the information. An Enterprise and the Federal Reserve Banks shall not be liable for any action taken in accordance with the information set out in a Transfer Message, or evidence submitted in support thereof.