alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.246 Admission of facts and genuineness of documents. ( a ) Within 20 days after the time for filing a notice of appearance has expired; or within 20 days after the release of an order adding parties to the proceeding (see §§ 1.223 and 1.227) or changing the issues (see § 1.229); or within such shorter or longer time as the presiding officer may allow on motion or notice, a party may serve upon any other party a written request for the admission by the latter of the genuineness of any relevant documents identified in and exhibited by a clear copy with the request or of the truth of any relevant matters of fact set forth in the request.
( b ) Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless, within a period designated in the request, not less than 10 days after service thereof, or within such shorter or longer time as the presiding officer may allow on motion or notice, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission either: ( 1 ) A sworn statement denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully admit or deny those matters, or
( 2 ) written objections on the ground that some or all of the requested admissions are privileged or irrelevant or that the request is otherwise improper in whole or in part. If written objections to a part of the request are made, the remainder of the request shall be answered within the period designated in the request. A denial shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission, and when good faith requires that a party deny only a part or a qualification of a matter of which an admission is requested, he shall specify so much of it as is true and deny only the remainder.
( c ) A copy of the request and of any answer shall be served by the party filing on all other parties to the proceeding and upon the presiding officer.
( d ) Written objections to the requested admissions may be ruled upon by the presiding officer without additional pleadings.
[33 FR 463, Jan. 12, 1968, as amended at 35 FR 17333, Nov. 11, 1970]
Decided February 23, 1909.

#### STATE *v.*NASBERG.

[99 Pac. 940.]

From Coos: James W. Hamilton, Judge.

The defendant, John Nasberg, was convicted of the crime of gambling, and from a judgment of the circuit court of Coos County, sentencing him to pay a fine, he appeals.

Affirmed.

Submitted on briefs under the proviso of Rule 16 of the Supreme Court. 50 Or. 580.

*245For appellant there was a brief over the names of *Messrs. Guerry & Hollister*and *Mr. Austin S. Hammond.*

For the State there was a brief over the name of *Mr. George M. Brown,*District Attorney.

Mr. Justice King

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a judgment sentencing defendant to pay a fine for unlawfully dealing in and playing a gambling game known as “21,” contrary to the general laws on the subject, and presents the same question as in *State*v. *Bay,*53 Or. 241 (99 Pac. 939). The conclusion there reached determines the points involved here, for which reason the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 2.815 External radio frequency power amplifiers. ( a ) As used in this part, an external radio frequency power amplifier is any device which, ( 1 ) when used in conjunction with a radio transmitter as a signal source is capable of amplification of that signal, and
( 2 ) is not an integral part of a radio transmitter as manufactured.
( b ) No person shall manufacture, sell or lease, offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or lease) or import, ship or distribute for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease, any external radio frequency power amplifier capable of operation on any frequency or frequencies below 144 MHz unless the amplifier has received a grant of certification in accordance with subpart J of this part and other relevant parts of this chapter. These amplifiers shall comply with the following: ( 1 ) The external radio frequency power amplifier shall not be capable of amplification in the frequency band 26-28 MHz.
( 2 ) The amplifier shall not be capable of easy modification to permit its use as an amplifier in the frequency band 26-28 MHz.
( 3 ) No more than 10 external radio frequency power amplifiers may be constructed for evaluation purposes in preparation for the submission of an application for a grant of certification.
( 4 ) If the external radio frequency power amplifier is intended for operation in the Amateur Radio Service under part 97 of this chapter, the requirements of §§ 97.315 and 97.317 of this chapter shall be met.
[40 FR 1246, Jan. 7, 1975; 40 FR 6474, Feb. 12, 1975, as amended at 43 FR 12687, Mar. 27, 1978; 43 FR 33725, Aug. 1, 1978; 46 FR 18981, Mar. 27, 1981; 62 FR 10470, Mar. 7, 1997; 71 FR 66461, Nov. 15, 2006]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 Nos. 333-41048, 333-45002, and 333-85304) of Connetics Corporation and
in Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-46562, 333-61558, 333-82468,
333-58146, 333-85302, and 333-102619) pertaining to the 1995 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, Stock Plan (2000), 2000 Non-Officer Employee Stock Plan,
International Stock Incentive Plan, 1995 Directors' Stock Option Plan and 2002
Non-Officer Employee Stock Plan of Connetics Corporation, of our report dated
January 24, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Connetics Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 2002.


                                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 4, 2003
No. 11-763.

#### Commissioner of Internal Revenue *v.*R and J Partners et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00126

- CR

D ESMOND D AJUAN S ANDERS

, J R

. , Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 90th District

Court

of Young County ( CR11766 )

July 6, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Chief

Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismisse d. I t is ordered that the appeal is dismissed f or want of

jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"22-2140: O'BRIEN v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ru4moqY2aL\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-13-2023-22-2140-obrien-v-microsoft-corporation-rule-36-judgment-22-2140-rule_36_judgment-11-13-2023_2220707\/\">22-2140: O’BRIEN v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-13-2023-22-2140-obrien-v-microsoft-corporation-rule-36-judgment-22-2140-rule_36_judgment-11-13-2023_2220707\/embed\/#?secret=ru4moqY2aL\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-2140: O’BRIEN v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"ru4moqY2aL\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"RULE 36 JUDGMENT Posted: O’BRIEN v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-2140 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
§ 60-741.80 Recordkeeping. ( a ) *General requirements.* Except as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, any personnel or employment record made or kept by the contractor shall be preserved by the contractor for a period of two years from the date of the making of the record or the personnel action involved, whichever occurs later. However, if the contractor has fewer than 150 employees or does not have a Government contract of at least $150,000, the minimum record retention period shall be one year from the date of the making of the record or the personnel action involved, whichever occurs later, except as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section. Such records include, but are not necessarily limited to, records relating to requests for reasonable accommodation; the results of any physical examination; job advertisements and postings; applications and resumes; tests and test results; interview notes; and other records having to do with hiring, assignment, promotion, demotion, transfer, lay-off or termination, rates of pay or other terms of compensation, and selection for training or apprenticeship. In the case of involuntary termination of an employee, the personnel records of the individual terminated shall be kept for a period of two years from the date of the termination, except that contractors that have fewer than 150 employees or that do not have a Government contract of at least $150,000 shall keep such records for a period of one year from the date of the termination. Where the contractor has received notice that a complaint of discrimination has been filed, that a compliance evaluation has been initiated, or that an enforcement action has been commenced, the contractor must preserve all personnel records relevant to the complaint, compliance evaluation, or action until final disposition of the complaint, compliance evaluation or action. The term “personnel records relevant to the complaint, compliance evaluation, or action” will include, for example, personnel or employment records relating to the aggrieved person and to all other employees holding positions similar to that held or sought by the aggrieved person and application forms or test papers completed by an unsuccessful applicant and by all other candidates for the same position as that for which the aggrieved person applied and was rejected.
( b ) *Records with three-year retention requirement.* Records required by § 60-741.44(f)(4) and (k) shall be maintained by all contractors for a period of three years from the date of the making of the record.
( c ) *Failure to preserve records.* Failure to preserve complete and accurate records as required by this part constitutes noncompliance with the contractor's obligations under the act and this part. Where the contractor has destroyed or failed to preserve records as required by this section, there may be a presumption that the information destroyed or not preserved would have been unfavorable to the contractor: *Provided,* That this presumption shall not apply where the contractor shows that the destruction or failure to preserve records results from circumstances that are outside of the contractor's control.
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION 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 Atlas Minerals Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QKSB for the period ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gary E. Davis, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 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.



|By: | /s/ Gary E. Davis                                                                  
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    | Gary E. Davis
Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer
November 18, 2003
|    |                                                                                    





#
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2021-2040: VDPP LLC v. VIZIO, Inc. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ZePpylHp4u\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-08-2022-2021-2040-vdpp-llc-v-vizio-inc-audio-uploaded\/\">2021-2040: VDPP LLC v. VIZIO, Inc.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-08-2022-2021-2040-vdpp-llc-v-vizio-inc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=ZePpylHp4u\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2021-2040: VDPP LLC v. VIZIO, Inc.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"ZePpylHp4u\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: VDPP LLC v. VIZIO, Inc. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2021-2040 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
EXHIBIT 32.2

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 10 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 Form 10-Q of Environmental Solutions
Worldwide, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period June 30, 2008 (the
"Report"), Praveen Nair Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1). To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                               DATE: AUGUST 14, 2008

                                               /S/ PRAVEEN NAIR
                                               --------------------
                                               PRAVEEN NAIR
                                               CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Environmental Solutions Worldwide,
Inc. and will be retained by Environmental Solutions Worldwide, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2021-1495: Tris Pharma, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"XH5pCix0V4\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-08-2022-2021-1495-tris-pharma-inc-v-actavis-laboratories-fl-inc-audio-uploaded\/\">2021-1495: Tris Pharma, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-08-2022-2021-1495-tris-pharma-inc-v-actavis-laboratories-fl-inc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=XH5pCix0V4\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2021-1495: Tris Pharma, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"XH5pCix0V4\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: Tris Pharma, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2021-1495 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporationby reference in Registration Statements on Form S-8 (SEC File Nos.333-147435, 333-108672 and 333-108673) and in Registration Statements on FormS-3 (SEC File Nos. 333-148286, 333-147596, 333-147595, 333-123401, 333-133264and 333-115033) of our report dated March 23, 2007, except for the mattersdiscussed in Note 19 dated as of October 12, 2007, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of Elixir Gaming Technologies, Inc. andSubsidiaries as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006, included in theAnnual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.

 

 

/s/ Piercy, Bowler, Taylor andKern

 

March 31, 2008

 

----
#### § 101.64 Service areas.

Service areas for 38.6-40.0 GHz service are Economic Areas (EAs) as defined below. EAs are delineated by the Regional Economic Analysis Division, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. The Commerce Department organizes the 50 States and the District of Columbia into 172 EAs. Additionally, there are four EA-like areas: Guam and Northern Mariana Islands; Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; American Samoa and the Gulf of Mexico. A total of 175 authorizations (excluding the Gulf of Mexico EA-like area) will be issued for each channel block in the 39 GHz band.

[64 FR 45893, Aug. 23, 1999]