alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause number: 01

- 1 4

- 0 0 880

- C V

Style: The aola Robinson

v. KTRK Television, Inc.

Date motion filed * : August 25, 201 5

Type of motion: Second M otion for Extension of Time to File Appell ee ’s Brief , or in the Alternative,

Motion to Suspend Briefing Deadlines

Party filing motion: Appell ee KTRK Television, Inc.

Document to be filed: Appell ee ’s Brief

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: July 27 , 2015

Number of previous extensions granted: 1 Current Due date: August 25, 2015

Date Requested: September 25, 2015

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

— Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellee’s Brief

If document is to be filed, document due: September 25

, 2015

 T he Court will not grant additional motions to extend time absent extraordinary circumstances

.

 Denied

 Dismissed

— Motion to Suspend Briefing Deadlines

Appellee’s motion for an extension of time to file appellee’s brief is granted. Appellee’s brief is due to be filed no

later than September 25, 2015. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(b), (c) . Appellee’s motion to suspend briefing deadlines

is d ismissed as moot

.

Judge ’ s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd



Date: September 3, 2015
-88 -86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

36 38 40 42 44



### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 06/29 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 29 Jun 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
###### Editorial Note on Part 20

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

#### § 20.85 Notice of offset.

Prior to effecting a salary offset, the paying DOL agency should advise the debtor of the impending offset. This notice should state that the debtor has been provided his/her rights under 5 U.S.C. 5514, that a determination has been made that collection by salary offset would be in the best interests of the United States, the amount of the offset, the date the salary offset will begin, and that the source of funds shall be from current disposable pay, except as provided by (c) and (d) of § 20.84. If evidence suggests that the debtor is no longer located at the address of record, reasonable action shall be taken to obtain a current address.
Exhibit 99.2
                                    a21, Inc.
                        One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
                         San Francisco, California 94111
                                 (415) 284-2121




                             CERTICATION 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 a21, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Albert Pleus, Chairman
of the Board of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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 results of operations of
         the Company.


 /s/ Albert Pleus
  ---------------
Albert Pleus, Chairman
(Principal Financial Officer)
#### § 91.101 Applicability.

This subpart prescribes flight rules governing the operation of aircraft within the United States and within 12 nautical miles from the coast of the United States.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 50157 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

RONALD MARTIN MOORE, also known as Donald Martin Moore, also known as Ronald Moore, also known as Donald M. Moore, also known as Ronald E. Moore

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:14

- CR

- 734

- 1

Before JONES, SOUTHWICK , and COSTA , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Ronald Martin Moore raises
an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. Rawls , 85 F.3d
240, 241

- 43 (5th Cir. 1996) , which rejected a Commerce Clause

- based
challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The Government’s motion for summary

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances se t forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED
December 1 5 , 2015
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-50157 Document: 00513307605 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2015No. 15

- 50157

2 affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file
a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 15-50157 Document: 00513307605 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
EXHIBIT 31
**CERTIFICATIONS**
     I, HayneHipp, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of The Liberty      Corporation; and   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; 
   Date: March 17, 2005           /s/ Hayne Hipp     Hayne Hipp  Chairman and Chief      Executive Officer  
6
\
#### Joseph S. Copes *vs.*Hugh H. Fultz, Administrator, &c.

S. as surviving partner of the firm of S. & S. obtained a judgment against C. upon which no execution was issued within a year and a day ; a *scire facias*to revive, was afterwards issued, and no further step taken for nearly two years, when F. as administrator of the deceased partner, without suggesting the plaintiff’s death, caused himself to be admitted as plaintiff, took a judgment by default on the *scire facias,*and had an execution issued in his name—held, that F. was a mere intruder, and the judgment in his favor clearly erroneous.

Error from the circuit court of Holmes county.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Levi Sholar, as the surviving partner of the firm of Scurlock & Sholar, against Joseph S. Copes, to the October term, 1838, of the circuit court of Holmes county. The defendant pleaded the general issue and payment. At the April term, 1839, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, for two hundred and thirty-two dollars and seven cents. On the 22d of September, 1841, a *scire facias*was issued to revive the judgment, no execution having ever issued thereon. At the April term, 1843; without Sholar’s death being suggested, or any other step having been taken, after the issuance of the *scire facias,*Hugh H. Fultz, as administrator *de bonis non*of Thomas M. Scurlock, the deceased partner of the firm of Scurlock & Sholar, was, upon his motion, admitted as plaintiff, a judgment by default on the *scire facias*rendered in his favor, and execution thereon awarded; To reverse which judgment this writ of error is now prosecuted.

*Thompson,*for plaintiff in error.

I can only say that if there is any law to warrant the procedure in the circuit court, I have never seen it.

Mr. Justice Clayton

delivered the opinion of the court.

In April, 1839, Levi Sholar, as the surviving partner of Scurlock & Sholar, obtained a judgment against Copes for two hun*624dred and thirty-two dollars, in the Holmes circuit court. No execution issued upon the judgment within the year and the day, and in September, 1841, a *scire facias*to revive was issued. No farther steps were taken in this cause till April, 1843, when without any suggestion of the death of Sholar, the defendant in error, H. H. Fultz, as the administrator *de bonis non*of the deceased partner, Scurlock, caused himself to be admitted as a part}'- plaintiff upon the record, took a default upon the *scire facias,*issued in 1841, and obtained an order for an execution in his own name.

The bare statement of the facts proves as plainly as any argument could do, that all the proceedings subsequent to the issuing of the *scire facias,*are erroneous. The judgment could only be enforced in the name of Sholar, or if he rvere dead, in that of his representative. The administrator of Scurlock was a mere intruder, without legal right or authority, so far as appears from the record, to justify his interference.

*Judgment reversed.*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Minority Programs Review Committee MARC Review Subcommittee A.                    

*Date:*                         June 22-23, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         8 am to 5 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Richard I. Martinez, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 1AS-19G, Bethesda, MD 20892-6200, (301) 594-2849.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Development Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 10, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-12542  Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
----

Action brought on 24 April 2004 by Davide Rovetta against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-159/04)

(2004/C 179/25)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 April 2004 by Davide Rovetta, represented by Maurizio Gambardella, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Davide Rovetta, an official in Directorate General for taxation and customs union, upon completing his period of probation, applied to the appointing authority, in accordance with Article 31 of the Staff Regulations, to be classified in the higher grade in his category, that is B 4. In his request he pointed out that he had been engaged in order to carry out additional duties as a lawyer in Directorate General for taxation and customs union, Unit A3 ‘Legal affairs and enforcement of Community provisions’.

On receiving a reply in the negative from the appointing authority and being appointed to Grade B 5/3, he brought a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against that decision, which was expressly rejected.

The applicant now seeks before the Court of First Instance the annulment of that decision on the complaint and of the preceding decision regarding grading as well as of the refusal to grant the access requested by him to the documents of the joint grading committee.

In the view of the applicant, those decisions were vitiated by an infringement of Articles 25 and 31 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the case-law of the Court of Justice and of the Court of First Instance on the matter and by a breach of essential procedural requirements, inadequate statement of reasons and manifest error of assessment. The applicant points out, moreover, in that connection, that the basic decision on grading of 1983, as amended by the decision of 7 February 1996, was misapplied.

Finally, the applicant alleges unlawfulness of the system of delegation of powers of the appointing authority by the College, in the context of grading, inasmuch as it is in breach of the principles of proportionality, transparency and sound administration.

----
§ 2570.141 Procedures for review by the Secretary. ( a ) Upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the Secretary shall establish a briefing schedule which shall be served on all parties of record. Upon motion of one or more of the parties, the Secretary may, in his or her discretion, permit the submission of reply briefs.
( b ) The Secretary shall issue a decision as promptly as possible after receipt of the briefs of the parties. The Secretary may affirm, modify, or set aside, in whole or in part, the decision on appeal and shall issue a statement of reasons and bases for the action(s) taken. Such decision by the Secretary shall be final agency action within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 704.
### Surface waters of Vermont

By: Charles Henry Pierce

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp424

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4971 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

229 Minnetonka Avenue South in Wayzata, Minnesota, as the ‘‘Jim 

Ramstad Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 7, 2020 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Ms. SMITH, Mr. CRAMER, and Mr. HOEVEN) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 229 Minnetonka Avenue South in Wayzata, 

Minnesota, as the ‘‘Jim Ramstad Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. JIM RAMSTAD POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 229 Minnetonka Avenue South 

6 in Wayzata, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as 

7 the ‘‘Jim Ramstad Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4971 IS

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Jim Ramstad Post 

3 Office’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### § 2200.106 Amendment to rules.

The Commission may at any time upon its own motion or initiative, or upon written suggestion of any interested person setting forth reasonable grounds therefor, amend or revoke any of the rules contained in this Part. The Commission invites suggestions from interested parties to amend or revoke rules of procedure. Such suggestions should be sent by email to *rules.suggestions@oshrc.gov* or addressed to the Executive Secretary of the Commission at One Lafayette Centre, 1120 20th Street NW, Suite 980, Washington, DC 20036-3457.
§ 2570.68 Decision of the administrative law judge. For 502(c)(2) civil penalty proceedings, this section shall apply in lieu of § 18.57 of this title. ( a ) *Proposed findings of fact, conclusions, and order.* Within twenty (20) days of the filing of the transcript of the testimony of such additional time as the administrative law judge may allow, each party may file with the administrative law judge, subject to the judge's discretion, proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order together with a supporting brief expressing the reasons for such proposals. Such proposals and briefs shall be served on all parties, and shall refer to all portions of the record and to all authorities relied upon in support of each proposal.
( b ) *Decision of the administative law judge.* Within a reasonable time after the time allowed for the filing of the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order, or within thirty (30) days after receipt of an agreement containing consent findings and order disposing of the disputed matter in whole, the administrative law judge shall make his or her decision. The decision of the administrative law judge shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law with reasons therefor upon each material issue of fact or law presented on the record. The decision of the administrative law judge shall be based upon the whole record. In a contested case in which the Department and the Respondent have presented their positions to the administrative law judge pursuant to the procedures for 502(c)(2) civil penalty proceedings as set forth in this subpart, the penalty (if any) which may be included in the decision of the administrative law judge shall be limited to the penalty expressly provided for in section 502(c)(2) of ERISA. It shall be supported by reliable and probative evidence. The decision of the administrative law judge shall become final agency action within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 704 unless an appeal is made pursuant to the procedures set forth in §§ 2570.69 through 2570.71.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

Exhibit 27

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ISSUER'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET FOR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND ITS
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS FOR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996, SET FORTH
IN THE ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1.0
<CASH>                                           2,041
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,616
<ALLOWANCES>                                       427
<INVENTORY>                                      4,138
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,948
<PP&E>                                          31,343
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,038
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,439
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,532
<BONDS>                                          7,172
<COMMON>                                           817
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,735
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,439
<SALES>                                         47,599
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,599
<CGS>                                           36,953
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,498
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 867
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,332
<INCOME-TAX>                                       894
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,438
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,274
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21
        

</TABLE>
§ 1919.32 Specially designed blocks and components. ( a ) Blocks and connecting components of an unusual nature which are specially designed and constructed as an integral part of a particular lifting unit and are either permanently affixed or of such design that two or more components must be tested together need not be considered as loose gear for purposes of § 1919.31.
( b ) In lieu of the loose gear proof test required by § 1919.31(a), design data shall be submitted to an accredited certification agency indicating design and material specifications and analysis whereby the designed strength of such gear may be determined.
( c ) Subsequent to the test of the lifting unit as a whole, a thorough visual examination shall be made of disassembled parts and an electronic, ultrasonic, or other equally efficient nondestructive examination shall be made of those parts not dismantled to ensure the safe condition of such parts.