alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5388

AN ACT

To designate a building proposed to be located

within the boundaries of the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, as the ‘‘Herbert H. Bateman Education and Administrative Center’’.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5388

AN ACT

To designate a building proposed to be located within the

boundaries of the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge,

as the ‘‘Herbert H. Bateman Education and Administrative Center’’.

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

•HR 5388 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 A building proposed to be located within the bound3 aries of the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, on

4 Assateague Island, Virginia, shall be known and des5 ignated as the ‘‘Herbert H. Bateman Education and Ad6 ministrative Center’’.

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the building

10 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

11 to the ‘‘Herbert H. Bateman Education and Administra12 tive Center’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 24,

2000.

Attest:

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-26-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-21-1997
<CASH>                                         254,503
<SECURITIES>                                   149,862
<RECEIVABLES>                                  373,290
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    108,446
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               971,070
<PP&E>                                         930,185
<DEPRECIATION>                                 688,426
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,449,583
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          744,131
<BONDS>                                             48
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,116
<OTHER-SE>                                     597,289
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,449,583
<SALES>                                        112,867
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               392,905
<CGS>                                           71,537
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  291,143
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               111,901
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,855
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (8,005)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (11,005)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11,005)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.09)
        


</TABLE>
#### § 401.10 Mooring lines.

(a) Mooring lines shall:

(1) Be of a uniform thickness throughout their length;

(2) Have a diameter not greater than 28 mm for wire line and not greater than 64 mm for approved synthetic lines;

(3) Be fitted with a hand spliced eye or Flemish type mechanical spliced eye of not less than 2.4 m long for wire lines and 1.8 m long spliced eye for approved synthetic lines;

(4) Have sufficient strength to check the vessel; and

(5) Be arranged so that they may be led to either side of the vessel as required.

(6) Be certified and a test certificate for each mooring line containing information on breaking strength, material type, elongation and diameter shall be available onboard for inspection.

(b) Unless otherwise permitted by an officer, vessels greater than 200 m shall only use wire mooring lines with a breaking strength that complies with the minimum specifications set out in the table to this section shall be used for securing a vessel in lock chambers.

(c) [Reserved]

(d) Notwithstanding [paragraphs (a)](/on/2024-09-19/title-33/section-401.10#p-401.10(a)) through [(c)](/on/2024-09-19/title-33/section-401.10#p-401.10(c)) of this section, nylon line is not permitted.

Table

| Overall length of ships | Length of mooring line | Breaking strength |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 40 m or more but not more than 60 m | 110 m | 10 MT |
| More than 60 m but not more than 90 m | 110 m | 15 MT |
| More than 90 m but not more than 120 m | 110 m | 20 MT |
| More than 120 m but not more than 180 m | 110 m | 28 MT |
| More than 180 m but not more than 225.5 m | 110 m | 35 MT |
| **Elongation of synthetic lines shall not exceed 20%** | | |

(e) Hand held synthetic lines if permitted by the Manager or Corporation shall meet the criteria in [paragraph (a)](/on/2024-09-19/title-33/section-401.10#p-401.10(a)) of this section and shall have a minimum length of not less than 65 meters.

(68 Stat. 93-96, [33 U.S.C. 981-990](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/33/981), as amended and sec. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 13 of sec. 2 of Pub. L. 95-474, 92 Stat. 1471)

[[39 FR 10900](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/39-FR-10900), Mar. 22, 1974, as amended at [47 FR 51121](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/47-FR-51121), Nov. 12, 1982; [48 FR 20691](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/48-FR-20691), May 9, 1983; [48 FR 22545](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/48-FR-22545), May 19, 1983; [61 FR 19551](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-19551), May 2, 1996; [65 FR 52913](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/65-FR-52913), Aug. 31, 2000; [70 FR 12970](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/70-FR-12970), Mar. 17, 2005; [74 FR 18994](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/74-FR-18994), Apr. 27, 2009; [75 FR 10689](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/75-FR-10689), Mar. 9, 2010; [78 FR 16181](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/78-FR-16181), Mar. 14, 2013; [79 FR 12659](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/79-FR-12659), Mar. 6, 2014; [81 FR 13745](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/81-FR-13745), Mar. 15, 2016; [87 FR 12591](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/87-FR-12591), Mar. 7, 2022]
###### Editorial Note on Part 150

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 150 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

#### § 150.628 How must the operator label, tag, and mark a container of hazardous material?

The operator must label, tag, or mark each container of hazardous material with the identity of the hazardous material and the appropriate physical, health, reactive and other special condition hazard warnings. The only exception is for portable containers that transfer hazardous material from a labeled container to the work site for immediate use by the person who performs the transfer.
##### 



Exhibit 10.2
 
 ALLEGHENY ENERGY, INC.
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK PLAN
 1. Purpose And Effective Date .
  2. Definitions .
 2.1. Board
 2.2. Company
 2.3. Non-Employee Director
 2.4. Payment Date
 2.5. Plan
 2.6. Quarter
 2.7. Share
 2.8. Share Payment




---



##### 



2.9. Year
 3. Eligibility .
 4. Share Payment .
 4.1.
 4.2. provided however
 4.3.
  4.4.
 5. Shares Subject To The Plan




---



##### 



6. Amendment And Discontinuance
 6.1.
 6.2.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 6.3
 6.4
 7. Compliance With Applicable Legal
Requirements .




---



##### 



8. Deferral Election .
 9. Administration .
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-61671-CIV-SINGHAL

PREPARED FOOD PHOTOS, INC., etc.,

Plaintiff,

v.

FAT DADDY CO. d/b/a FAT DADDY MEATS,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court following entry of the Order (DE [14]) granting 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Default Judgment. The Court enters this separate final 

judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Final Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff 

Prepared Food Photos, Inc., and against Defendant Fat Daddy Co. d/b/a Fat Daddy 

Meats, as follows:

1. Plaintiff shall recover from Defendant the principal sum of 

$27,238.00 for which let execution issue. The foregoing sum consists of 

$23,976.00 (statutory damages for copyright infringement), $467.00 (costs), 

and $2,795.00 (attorneys’ fees).

2. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a) and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.560, the 

judgment debtor, The Charter Agency LLC, shall complete, under oath, a 

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure Form 1.977 (Fact Information Sheet), 

including all required attachments, and serve it on the judgment creditor’s 

attorney, Daniel DeSouza Esq., CopyCat Legal PLLC, 3111 N. University 

Drive, Suite 301, Coral Springs, FL 33065, within 45 days from the date of 

this Final Judgment, unless the Final Judgment is satisfied or post-judgment 

is stayed. Failure to complete the fact information sheet shall be just cause 

for further sanctions. See, e.g., Biggross, Inc. v. Matthews, 2007 WL 

2827566, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2007) (awarding sanctions for a 

defendant’s failure to fill out a fact information sheet).

Case 0:22-cv-61671-AHS Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 1 of 2
2

3. Defendant, its employees, agents, officers, directors, attorneys, 

successors, affiliates, subsidiaries and assigns, and all those in active 

concert and participation with Defendant are permanently enjoined from (a) 

directly or indirectly infringing Plaintiff’s copyright or continuing to market, 

offer, sell, dispose of, license, lease, transfer, publicly display, advertise, 

reproduce, develop, or manufacture any work derived or copied from 

Plaintiff’s copyrighted photograph or to participate or assist in any such 

activity; and (b) directly or indirectly reproducing, displaying, distributing, 

otherwise using, or retaining any copy, whether in physical or electronic 

form, of any copyrighted photograph owned by Plaintiff. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case and DENY AS MOOT any 

pending motions.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 29th day of 

November 2022.

Copies furnished to counsel via CM/ECF

Case 0:22-cv-61671-AHS Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 2 of 2
§ 101-27.304-2 Factors affecting the economic retention limit. ( a ) The economic retention limit may be increased where: ( 1 ) The item is of special manufacture and relates to an end item of equipment which is expected to be in use beyond the economic retention time limit; or
( 2 ) Costs incident to holding an additional quantity are insignificant and obsolescence and deterioration of an item are unlikely.
( b ) The economic retention limit should be reduced under the following conditions: ( 1 ) The related end item of equipment is being phased out or an interchangeable item is available; or
( 2 ) The item has limited storage life, is likely to become obsolete, or the age and condition of the item does not justify the full retention limit.
EX-99.2

                             PATENT APPLICATION

Summary:

The Patent Application, dated March 28, 2002.  The application is for
a utility patent that combines a series of integrated components
manufactured, assembled and programmed by 5G Wireless Communications,
Inc. which delivers high speed data via the unlicensed 802.11b
spectrum.  The invention was developed by Brian Corty, the Chief
Technology Officer of 5G Wireless Communications, Inc. and was
acquired through the acquisition of Wireless ThinkTank, a wholly owned
subsidiary of 5G Wireless Communications, Inc.   The technologies uses
IEEE 802.11b DSSS (Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum) wireless radios
with circular polarized antennas and power over Ethernet to deliver a
solution that is improves maximum transmition rates and
improved performance and throughputs in a variety of terrains.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

James Friend, Appellant

No. 06

- 15

- 00099

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 102nd District Court of Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 14F0439

- 102 ). Opinion delivered by Jus tice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant, James Friend, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 2, 2016 BY ORD ER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Exhibit 24.10

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Mark A. Kopser and John J. Wellik, and each of them, his true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his behalf, as a director or officer, or both, as
the case may be, of United Surgical Partners International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2002, and to sign any or all amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact, and each of them with or without the others, full power and authority to do and perform each and every
act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of
said attorneys-in-fact or its substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

| |  | /s/DAVID P. ZARIN, M.D.David P. Zarin, M.D.
| |  | -------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
#### § 963.6 Computation of time.

A designated period of time under these rules means calendar days, excludes the day the period begins, and includes the last day of the period unless the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, in which case the period runs until the close of business on the next business day.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                     SUBSIDIARIES OF ASIAINFO HOLDINGS, INC.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            NAME UNDER WHICH THE SUBSIDIARY     STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF
                SUBSIDIARY                           DOES BUSINESS                     INCORPORATION
                ----------                           -------------                     -------------
<S>                                         <C>                                 <C>
AsiaInfo Technologies (China), Inc.              AsiaInfo Technologies            People's Republic of China

Guangdong Wangying Information Technology        Wangying                         People's Republic of China
Co. Ltd.

MarSec Holdings, Inc.                            MarSec                           Cayman Islands

MarSec Systems, Inc.                             MarSec                           People's Republic of China
</TABLE>




                                      -1-
Epping Municipal Court

No. 7565

#### State of New Hampshire v. Michael A. Varney

February 28, 1977

*David H. Souter,*attorney general, and *Edward N. Damon,*assistant attorney general *(Mr. Damon*orally) for the state.

*Lee A. Strimbeck,*of Derry, by brief and orally, for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

Defendant was charged with the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of ESA 262-A.-62 (Supp. 1975). Defendant moved to suppress the results of a blood *164test sample of 0.17 percent alcohol by weight because of a twelve-day delay from the date the sample was taken to the date the sample was analyzed by the state police laboratory. This delay is asserted to violate RSA 262-A: 69-i (Supp. 1975).

The chemist who performed the analysis of the sample testified that any deterioration would have worked to the defendant’s favor, not the state’s. Because the timing of delivery of the blood sample to the state laboratory for analysis is “not part of the procedure for conducting the chemical test,” the defendant may not take advantage of the provision for exclusion of evidence pursuant to RSA 262-A: 69-i (Supp. 1975). *State v. Paul,*116 N.H. 252, 356 A.2d 661 (1976); *State v. Groulx,*109 N.H. 281, 249 A.2d 690 (1969). To the extent the twelve-day delay has any effect on the evidence it would relate to its weight and not its admissibility. *State v. Gallant,*108 N.H. 72, 73-75, 227 A.2d 597, 598-99 (1967); *State v. LaFountain,*108 N.H. 219, 231 A.2d 635 (1967).

This case raises no new or important question for this court. *See State v. Miller,*117 N.H. 67, 369 A.2d 197 (1977). The transferring of questions such as herein raised by district and municipal courts pursuant to RSA 502-A:17-a (Supp. 1975) on interlocutory matters should not be encouraged. *See, e.g.,*RSA 491: App. R. 88 (Supp. 1975).

*Denial of defendants motion affirmed;*remanded.
DARRELL SHANTA JENKINS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 13

- 4339

_ ____________________________/

Opinion filed July 9, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Michael G. Allen , Judge

.

Darrell Shanta Jenkins, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant Attorne y

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS

, RAY

, and SWANSON

, J J

. , CONCUR.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

January 20, 2022

No. 04

- 21

- 00536

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.N.A.T, A.S.A.T., S.G.A.T ., Children,

From the 57th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CI02828 Honorable Nick Catoe Jr. , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

T he clerk’s record was due to be filed with this court on January 3, 2022

. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 35.1 (c)

. On December 29, 2021 , the Bexar County District Clerk notified this court that Appellant ha s not paid the clerk’s fee for preparing the record and Appellant is not entitled to a
free clerk’s record

. We ORDER Appellant to provide written proof to this court within TEN DAYS of the date of this order that (1) the clerk’s fee has been pa id or arrangements have been made to pay the clerk’s fee, or (2) Appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. See id. R.
20.1.

If Appellant fail s to respond as ordered, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution without furth er notice

. See id. R. 37.3(b).

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 20th day of January, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
#### § 101-25.404 Furniture.

Furniture (office, household and quarters, and institutional) shall not be replaced unless the estimated cost of repair or rehabilitation (based on GSA term contracts), including any transportation expense, exceeds at least 75 percent of the cost of a new item of the same type and class (based on prices as shown in the current edition of the GSA Supply Catalog, applicable Federal Supply Schedules, or the lowest available market price). An exception is authorized in those unusual situations in which rehabilitation of the furniture at 75 percent or less of the cost of a new item would not extend its useful life for a period compatible with the cost of rehabilitation as determined by the agency head or his designee.

[38 FR 28566, Oct. 15, 1973]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 14, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 37362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15021]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 011300D]


Marine Mammals; File No. P624

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of permit amendment.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Dr. Michael J. Moore, Woods Hole 
Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543, has been issued an 
amendment to scientific research Permit No. 1032.

ADDRESSES: The amendment and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
    Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/
713-2289);
    Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn 
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, (978/281-9250); and
    Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, 9721 Executive 
Center Drive North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2432 (813/570-5312).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth Johnson, 301/713-2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 10, 1999, notice was published 
in the Federal Register (64 FR 73523) that an amendment of Permit No. 
1032, issued April 18, 1997 (62 FR 23229), had been requested by the 
above-named individual. The requested amendment has been granted under 
the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended 
(16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the Regulations Governing the Taking and 
Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the regulations 
governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and 
threatened species (50 CFR 222-226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.).
    The Permit, as amended, authorizes at-sea biopsy darting of large 
whales, blubber acoustic assay, passive acoustic listening, and 
inadvertent harassment of large whales in Atlantic Ocean, international 
waters and Caribbean.
    Issuance of this amendment, as required by the ESA was based on a 
finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will 
not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the 
subject of this permit, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and 
policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

    Dated: June 8, 2000.
Ann D. Terbush,
Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 00-15021 Filed 6-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F