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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 78

106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                H. R. 4

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To declare it to be the policy of the United States to deploy a 
                       national missile defense.

To declare it to be the policy of the United States to deploy a 
national missile defense.______________________________________________

                             March 24, 1999

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
                                                        Calendar No. 78
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 24, 1999

            Received; read twice and placed on the calender

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To declare it to be the policy of the United States to deploy a 
                       national missile defense.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That it is the policy 
of the United States to deploy a national missile defense.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 18, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Contract
of Purchasing the Product: Xinyu Breath Sprayer


 


Party A: Harbin Tianmu Medicine Co., Ltd. 


Party B: Harbin Junde Health Products Co.,
Ltd.


 


Party A, due to its
product structure adjustment and the needs of its sale business, hereby reaches a consensus and concludes a contract with Party
B as follows, pertaining to the product transfer of Xinyu Breath Sprayer on the basis of equality and mutual benefits:


 


		1.	Party A shall provide Production Permit with its red stamp affixed, Legal Person’s Business
License and Organization Code Certificate.



		2.	Party B shall provide for Party A production permit documents and quality standards for Xinyu Breath
Sprayer.



		3.	Party B shall provide for Party A the production technical process for Xinyu Breath Sprayers and
ensure to produce three shipments of quality Xinyu Breath Sprayer under Party A’s current production conditions.



		4.	Contract Amount: 8,500,000 Rmb yuan even. After this contract becomes effective, Party A will pay
50% of the amount as product transfer fee and pay off the remaining balance after three shipments of quality Xinyu Breath Sprayers
have been produced.



		5.	If Party B is unable to produce three shipments of quality Xinyu Breath Sprayers according to the
technical process, he shall refund the 50% of the product transfer fee and bear all the other costs incurred.



		6.	Party A will prepay 50% of the product transfer fee within 10 days after this contract takes effect.
In case of default, Party A shall take all responsibilities.



		7.	If disputes occur in execution of the contract, the parties will work to resolve them through consultations.
If consultation fails, each party will be entitled to seek legal resolution.



		8.	If this contract is insufficient, the parties may negotiate to make supplements.



 


Party A: Harbin Tianmu Medicine Co., Ltd.


 


Party B: Harbin Junde Health Products Co.,
Ltd.


 


	 	April 30, 2012


 



    	 



    	 



    

 


Supplemental
Agreement


 


Party A: Harbin Tianmu Medicine Co., Ltd.


 


Party B: Harbin Junde Health Products Co.,
Ltd.


 


Through mutual consultations,
the following terms and conditions have been agreed on:


 


Party A will be responsible
for the preliminary costs for Party B’s samples, such as test, adjustment and purchase of materials. The fee will be deducted
from the payment of the remaining balance at the end.


 


After being officially
put into operation and free of quality and technical problems, the products should be considered qualified. Then, Party A shall
pay off the remaining balance to Party B.


 


Party A: Harbin Tianmu Medicine Co., Ltd.


 


Party B: Harbin Junde Health Products Sale
Co., Ltd.


 


July 2, 2012
Guinea's soil is 

washing away ... 

What is soil erosion and 

what's being done about it?

Fight against world 

hunger. 

What happens when the 

Earth provides insufficient 

nourishment to a population?

Reduce, Re-use, 

Recycle

Do you know the important 

facts about conservation?

Don't be an 

energy hog ... 

What are the major causes 

of energy waste?

April 22, 2006

Celebrate Earth Day! Celebrate Earth Day!

www.peacecorps.gov/wws
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-3O-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         632,156
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               632,156
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 632,156
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,350
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,500
<OTHER-SE>                                     530,306
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   632,156
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               188,196
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,079
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                183,117
<INCOME-TAX>                                    56,287
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            126,830
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   126,830
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       14
        

</TABLE>
#### GEORGE W. PLATT, Appellant, *v.*WILLIAM A. PARKER and THEODORE F. PIER, Respondents.

*Bankruptcy—omission of name of creditor in debtor's schedule*— *effect of—fraud must be shown.*

The omission from the schedule of the debtor, of the name or claim of a creditor, does not invalidate the discharge of the debtor in bankruptcy, unless it be • shown to have been omitted fraudulently.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendants, entered on the report of a referee, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint.

*136
      *Edward S.*Clinch, for the appellant.

*Wm. A. Jenner,*for the respondents.

Opinion by

Tappen, J.

Present— Barnard, P. J., Gilbert and Tapper, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

No. 55 

The People &c.,

 Respondent,

 v.

Otis Boone, 

 Appellant.

Leila Hull, for appellant.

Seth M. Lieberman, for respondent.

Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc.; Brooklyn Defender

Services et al.; The Innocence Project, Inc.; Daniel R. Alonso et

al.; American Psychological Association; National Association for

the Advancement of Colored People et al.; NAACP Legal Defense &

Educational Fund, Inc., amici curiae.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reargument ordered and case set down for argument at a future

session of the Court. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera,

Stein, Fahey and Garcia concur. Judge Wilson took no part.

Decided June 6, 2017
#### Alonzo Patterson v. State of Nebraska.

Filed June 26, 1894.

No. 6075.

Criminal Law: Evidence op Character. Where a person accused of crime introduces evidence of his good character or reputation it is not competent for the prosecution to put in evidence specific acts tending to prove it to be bad. *Olive v.*State, 11 Neb., 1, followed.

Error to the district court for. Custer county. Tried below before Holcomb, J.

*539
      *Greene & Hostetler,*for plaintiff in error.

*George H. Hastings, Attorney General,*for the state.

Ragan, C.

Alonzo Patterson was convicted in the district court of Custer county of an assault with intent to commit rape. Erom the judgment pronounced against him upon such conviction he comes here on error. Of the errors alleged we notice only the following: On the trial Patterson introduced several witnesses whose testimony tended to show his previous good character or reputation for chastity. One of these witnesses, on cross-examination by the state, against the objection of Patterson, was permitted to testify that on the preliminary examination of the prisoner she heard a witness 'testify that Patterson had hired or attempted to hire him to get two negro wenches out in a caSon for him to have sexual intercourse with. This evidence was not only erroneous but highly prejudicial to the prisoner. In the first place it was not the best evidence of the alleged conduct of Patterson; and in the second place, this act of Patterson was not competent evidence against him in this case.

In *Olive v. State,*11 Neb., 1, Olive was being tried for murder. During the trial a witness was called in his behalf and testified that Olive had the reputation of being a peaceable, law-abiding citizen. On cross-examination of this witness by the state he was asked if he had not heard of Olive having, on a certain occasion, drawn a revolver on someone, to which the witness gave an affirmative answer. The permitting of the witness to thus testify on cross-examination was assigned as error and the error sustained by this court. .Lake, J., delivering the opinion, said-; “Where a person accused of crime introduces evidence of his good character or reputation it is not compe*540tent for the prosecution in reply to put in evidence particular facts tending to prove it to be bad.” This case and the rule, laid down therein are decisive of the one at bar. The judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to grant the plaintiff in error a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.
§ 147.1110 Platform HARVEST safety zone. ( a ) *Description:* The area within a line 500 meters from each point on the structure's outer edge. The position of the center of the structure is 34-28-09.5 N, 120-40-46.1 W.
( b ) *Regulations:* No vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone except for the following: ( 1 ) An attending vessel,
( 2 ) a vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing or
( 3 ) a vessel authorized by the Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[CGD 11-84-01, 49 FR 33016, Aug. 20, 1984]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,351,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               51,579,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 14,470,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            78,541,000
<PP&E>                                       3,090,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              85,121,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       44,580,000
<BONDS>                                      9,286,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       10,490,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,028,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,610,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                85,121,000
<SALES>                                     64,321,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            64,321,000
<CGS>                                       50,177,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               50,177,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,499,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             458,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                187,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    92,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             95,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    95,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.39)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 9:22-cv-81447-AMC 

NELSON FERNANDEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TAPESTRY, INC. d/b/a KATE SPADE, 

a foreign for profit corporation, 

Defendant. 

/ 

DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 

Defendant Tapestry, Inc. d/b/a Kate Spade (“Tapestry”), by and through undersigned 

counsel, respectfully moves this Court for a brief extension of time to file its response to Plaintiff 

Nelson Fernandez’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint [D.E. 1], and states as follows: 

1. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on September 16, 2022. 

2. Tapestry’s deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint is October 11, 2022. 

3. Counsel for Tapestry was recently retained in this matter and requires additional time 

to formulate its response. 

4. Tapestry respectfully requests a brief extension of time of 14 days to respond to 

Plaintiff’s Complaint. This request for extension of time is made in good faith and not for purpose 

of delay. 

5. No party, nor this Court, will be prejudiced if the requested extension is granted. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant Tapestry, Inc. d/b/a Kate Spade requests an extension of time 

up to and including October 25, 2022 to file its response to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Undersigned 

counsel certifies that the instant Motion complies with the Local Rules and the Court’s Orders. 

Case 9:22-cv-81447-AMC Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2022 Page 1 of 3
2 

LOCAL RULE 7.1(A)(3) CERTIFICATION

Counsel for Defendant Tapestry conferred with counsel for Plaintiff via email on October 

11, 2022, and Plaintiff’s counsel does not oppose the relief requested herein. 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Nelson C. Bellido 

Nelson C. Bellido 

Roig Lawyers 

44 W. Flagler Street, Suite 2100 

Miami, Florida 33130 

Tel: (305) 405-0997 

Fax: (305) 405-1022 

nbellido@roiglawyers.com

pleadings@roiglawyers.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Tapestry, Inc. d/b/a Kate Spade 

Case 9:22-cv-81447-AMC Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2022 Page 2 of 3
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 11th day of October, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing with 

the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being 

served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service List in the 

manner specified, either via transmission of Notice of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in 

some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive Notices 

of Electronic Filing. 

RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

4800 North Hiatus Road 

Sunrise, FL 33351-7919 

Telephone: (954) 362-3800 

Facsimile: (954) 362-3779 

rhannah@rhannahlaw.com

LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO DURAN, P.A. 

Pelayo M. Duran, Esq. Co-Counsel for Plaintiff 

4640 N.W. 7th Street Miami, FL 33126-2309 

Telephone: (305) 266-9780 

Facsimile: (305) 269-8311 

pleadings@pelayoduran.com 

By: /s/ Nelson C. Bellido 

Nelson C. Bellido 

Case 9:22-cv-81447-AMC Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2022 Page 3 of 3
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

EDWARD COBBS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-1953

[October 25, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Paul L. Backman, 

Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 13-4100 CF10A, 14-1684 CF 10A, 14-4474 CF 10A.

Edward Cobbs, Madison, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
1999

- Crop production, 07.12.99 [ Text |   PDF ]  Crop production, 06.11.99[ Text | PDF ]Crop production, 05.12.99
[ Text |
 PDF ]
- Crop production, 04.09.99 [ Text |   PDF ]  Crop production, 03.11.99[ Text | PDF ]Crop production, 02.10.99
[ Text |
 PDF ]
- Crop production, 01.11.99 [ Text |   PDF ]
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                               ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

        In connection with the Quarterly Report of Aceto Corporation, a New York
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Douglas Roth, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

        (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and
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/ Douglas Roth
----------------
Douglas Roth
Chief Financial Officer
May 6, 2005
#### § 62.41 Ranges.

Ranges are aids to navigation systems employing dual beacons which, when the structures appear to be in line, assist the mariner in maintaining a safe course. The appropriate nautical chart must be consulted when using ranges to determine whether the range marks the centerline of the navigable channel and also to ascertain what section of the range may be safety traversed. Ranges are generally, but not always, lighted, and display rectangular daymarks of various colors.

[CGD 86-031, 52 FR 42640, Nov. 6, 1987; CGD 86-031, 52 FR 46351, Dec. 5, 1987]
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.2.10




September 30, 2019 


CorEnergy Infrastructure Trust, Inc.
1100 Walnut Street, Suite 3350
Kansas City, Missouri  64106
Re:    Management Agreement for CorEnergy Infrastructure Trust, Inc.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Reference is made to that certain Management Agreement, dated as of May 8, 2015 and effective as of May 1, 2015, by and between CorEnergy Infrastructure Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), and Corridor InfraTrust Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Manager”) (as such agreement has been, and may be further, amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Management Agreement”).  Capitalized terms used and not defined herein are used as defined in the Management Agreement.  The Company and the Manager have entered into this Letter Agreement to waive a portion of the Incentive Fee set forth in Section 8(b) of the Management Agreement applicable to the dividend paid during the calendar quarter ending September 30, 2019.  This letter in no way supersedes our May 9, 2016 letter agreement (effective March 31, 2016) concerning the Management Fee calculation.


This letter documents that the Manager has recommended, and the Company has agreed, that the Manager shall only be paid an Incentive Fee of $43,518 as a result of the dividend paid during the Company’s September 30, 2019 calendar quarter. This agreed upon incentive fee payment constitutes a waiver by the Manager of $125,627 of the Incentive Fee that would otherwise be due to the Manager from the Company.


The foregoing waiver shall not apply to any prior or future periods, although the Manager reserves the right to waive in the future any Incentive Fee payment to which it may be entitled for one or more future fiscal quarters of the Company.


The Company and the Manager mutually acknowledge and agree that this modification to the Incentive Fee payment right represents a discretionary action on the part of the Manager that is not required under the terms of the Management Agreement and that, except as specifically set forth herein, and as modified in our prior May 9, 2016 letter agreement concerning the Management Fee calculation, all provisions of the Management Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by this letter.


	
	
	Very truly yours,

	 

	CORRIDOR INFRATRUST MANAGEMENT, LLC

	By:  /s/ Richard C. Green, Jr.                                 

	Name:  Richard C. Green, Jr., Managing Director




	
	
	Agreed and accepted:

	 

	CORENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE TRUST, INC.

	By:  /s/ David J. Schulte                                          

	Name:  David J. Schulte, President










1100 Walnut Street, Suite 3350, Kansas City, MO 64106 | Main: 816.875.3705 | Fax: 816.875.5875 | corenergy.reit
§ 66.01-14 Label affixed by manufacturer. ( a ) Each light, intended or used as a private aid to navigation authorized by this part, must bear a legible, indelible label (or labels) affixed by the manufacturer and containing the following information: ( 1 ) Name of the manufacturer.
( 2 ) Model number.
( 3 ) Serial number.
( 4 ) Words to this effect: “This equipment complies with requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard in 33 CFR part 66.”
( b ) This label must last the service life of the equipment.
( c ) The manufacturer must provide the purchaser a data sheet containing the following information: ( 1 ) Recommended service life based on the degradation of either the source of light or the lamp.
( 2 ) Range in nautical miles.
( 3 ) Effective intensity in candela.
( 4 ) Size of lamp (incandescent only).
( 5 ) Interval, in days or years, for replacement of dry-cell or rechargeable battery.
[USCG-2000-7466, 68 FR 68239, Dec. 8, 2003]
#### § 80.1110 Dana Point Harbor, CA.

A line drawn from Dana Point Jetty Light 4 to Dana Point Breakwater Light 3.

[CGD 77-118a, 42 FR 35784, July 11, 1977. Redesignated by CGD 81-017, 46 FR 28154, May 26, 1981, and CGD 87-008b, 52 FR 25218, July 6, 1987; USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39172, July 1, 2013]