alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 11.35 Equipment operational readiness. ( a ) EAS Participants are responsible for ensuring that EAS Encoders, EAS Decoders, Attention Signal generating and receiving equipment, and Intermediate Devices used as part of the EAS to decode and/or encode messages formatted in the EAS Protocol and/or the Common Alerting Protocol are installed so that the monitoring and transmitting functions are available during the times the stations and systems are in operation. Additionally, EAS Participants must determine the cause of any failure to receive the required tests or activations specified in § 11.61(a)(1) and (2). Appropriate entries indicating reasons why any tests were not received must be made in the broadcast station log as specified in §§ 73.1820 and 73.1840 of this chapter for all broadcast streams and cable system records as specified in §§ 76.1700, 76.1708, and 76.1711 of this chapter. All other EAS Participants must also keep records indicating reasons why any tests were not received and these records must be retained for two years, maintained at the EAS Participant's headquarters, and made available for public inspection upon reasonable request.
( b ) If an EAS Encoder, EAS Decoder or Intermediary Device used as part of the EAS to decode and/or encode messages formatted in the EAS Protocol and/or the Common Alerting Protocol becomes defective, the EAS Participant may operate without the defective equipment pending its repair or replacement for 60 days without further FCC authority. Entries shall be made in the broadcast station log, cable system records, and records of other EAS Participants, as specified in paragraph (a) of this section, showing the date and time the equipment was removed and restored to service. For personnel training purposes, the required monthly test script must still be transmitted even though the equipment for generating the EAS message codes, Attention Signal and EOM code is not functioning.
( c ) If repair or replacement of defective equipment is not completed within 60 days, an informal request shall be submitted to the Regional Director of the FCC field office serving the area in which the EAS Participant is located, or in the case of DBS and SDARS providers to the Regional Director of the FCC field office serving the area where their headquarters is located, for additional time to repair the defective equipment. This request must explain what steps have been taken to repair or replace the defective equipment, the alternative procedures being used while the defective equipment is out of service, and when the defective equipment will be repaired or replaced.
[70 FR 71034, Nov. 25, 2005, as amended at 77 FR 16704, Mar. 22, 2012; 80 FR 53750, Sept. 8, 2015]
EXHIBIT 8.1



|                                             |  |                              
|-------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Subsidiaries                                 |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|Agenciamiento y Servicios Profesionales S.A. |  | Mexico                       
|Alto Paraná S.A.                             |  | Argentina                    
|Arauco Denmark ApS                           |  | Denmark                      
|Arauco do Brasil Ltda.                       |  | Brazil                       
|Arauco Ecuador S.A.                          |  | Ecuador                      
|Arauco Europe S.A.                           |  | Switzerland                  
|Arauco Forest Products B.V.                  |  | The Netherlands              
|Arauco Generación S.A.                       |  | Chile                        
|Arauco Honduras S. de R.L. de C.V.           |  | Honduras                     
|Arauco Internacional S.A.                    |  | Chile                        
|Araucomex S.A. de C.V.                       |  | Mexico                       
|Arauco Perú S.A.                             |  | Peru                         
|Arauco Wood Products, Inc.                   |  | U.S.A.                       
|Aserraderos Arauco S.A.                      |  | Chile                        
|Bosques Arauco S.A.                          |  | Chile                        
|Controladora de Plagas Forestales S.A.       |  | Chile                        
|Arauco Distribución S.A.                     |  | Chile                        
|Forestal Arauco S.A.                         |  | Chile                        
|Forestal Arauco Costa Rica S.A.              |  | Costa Rica                   
|Forestal Arauco Guatemala S.A.               |  | Guatemala                    
|Forestal Celco S.A.                          |  | Chile                        
|Forestal Cholguán S.A.                       |  | Chile                        
|Forestal Conosur S.A.                        |  | Uruguay                      
|Forestal Misiones S.A.                       |  | Argentina                    
|Forestal Valdivia S.A.                       |  | Chile                        
|Industrias Forestales S.A.                   |  | Argentina                    
|Inversiones Celco S.L.                       |  | Spain                        
|Investigaciones Forestales Bioforest S.A     |  | Chile                        
|Molduras Trupán S.A                          |  | Chile                        
|Paneles Arauco S.A.                          |  | Chile                        
|Servicios Logísticos Arauco S.A.             |  | Chile                        
|Southwoods Arauco Lumber LLC                 |  | U.S.A.                       
|Trupán Argentina S.A.                        |  | Argentina
Exhibit 32.2

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 E-LOAN, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), Darren Nelson , as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies, 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), as applicable 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/ Darren Nelson 					   Darren Nelson 
Chief Financial Officer

August 9, 2005



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to E-LOAN,
Inc. and will be retained by E-LOAN, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5
<LEGEND>
                               FDS - 1ST QUARTER
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                          0000006207
<NAME>                         AMREP CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                      1,000
<CURRENCY>                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                 MAY-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                   JUL-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                       1
<CASH>                           11,397
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                    55,236
<ALLOWANCES>                          0
<INVENTORY>                      72,045
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      0
<PP&E>                           32,114
<DEPRECIATION>                   14,512
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  172,445
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 0
<BONDS>                          38,827
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                            740
<OTHER-SE>                       86,772
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    172,445
<SALES>                           4,984
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 18,210
<CGS>                             3,563
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    14,645
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  818
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (356)
<INCOME-TAX>                       (142)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (214)
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                       (214)
<EPS-BASIC>                        (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (.03)



</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 7, 2019

NO. 03-18-00539-CV

S. N., Sr., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY 

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART—OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the protective order signed by the district court on May 17, 2018, and the 

conservatorship order signed by the court on July 24, 2018. Having reviewed the record and the 

parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the district court’s orders. 

Therefore, the Court affirms the conservatorship order and vacates the protective order. Because 

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4339

Authorizing the Davy Crockett Memorial Foundation to establish a memorial

to honor Davy Crockett in the District of Columbia or its environs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 4, 1994

Mr. DUNCAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on House Administration

A BILL

Authorizing the Davy Crockett Memorial Foundation to

establish a memorial to honor Davy Crockett in the

District of Columbia or its environs.

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH MEMORIAL.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Davy Crockett Memorial

5 Foundation (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘Foundation’’)

6 is authorized to establish a memorial on Federal land in

7 the District of Columbia or its environs to honor Davy

8 Crockett.

9 (b) COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS FOR COMMEMO10 RATIVE WORKS.—The establishment of the memorial au-
2

•HR 4339 IH

1 thorized in section 1 shall be in accordance with the Act

2 entitled ‘‘An Act to provide standards for placement of

3 commemorative works on certain Federal lands in the Dis4 trict of Columbia and its environs, and for other pur5 poses’’, approved November 14, 1986 (40 U.S.C. 1001 et

6 seq.).

7 SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF EXPENSES.

8 The Foundation shall be solely responsible for accept9 ance of contributions for, and payment of the expenses

10 of, the establishment of the memorial authorized in section

11 1. No Federal funds may be used to pay any expense of

12 the establishment of the memorial.

13 SEC. 3. DEPOSIT OF EXCESS FUNDS.

14 If, upon payment of all expenses of the establishment

15 of the memorial authorized in section 1 (including the

16 maintenance and preservation amount provided for in sec17 tion 8(b) of the Act referred to in section 1(b)), or upon

18 expiration of the authority for the memorial under section

19 10(b) of such Act, there remains a balance of funds re20 ceived for the establishment of the memorial, the Founda21 tion shall transfer the amount of the balance to the Sec22 retary of the Treasury for deposit in the account provided

23 for in section 8(b)(1) of such Act.

Æ
Order entered February 5, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 01585
- CV ROBIN LOUISE THOMAS, Appellant

V. DONALD ALLIE AND JAC KIE MCCLINTOCK AS RE PRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF THI PHAM, Appellee s On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 18
- 08195



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s February 3, 2020 opposed motion to extend time to file her jurisdictional letter brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the letter brief be filed no later than March 4, 2020. We caution that failure to comply may result in dismissal of this appeal without further notice. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3( a),(c).

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL J USTICE
No. 11-9250.

#### Martin *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
# AVS

Quality Management System Q?M# AIR·ANM·030-F4 Revision 1
Title: Domestic 

### Challge WorKsheet Date: December 17, 2008 

# Record ofContacts 

# "U.:!IO~

()~2;L FDMS Docket No. f

## AA-.•..

_ WiThwhom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, 

### R.•••• A, ALPA. Clc.)? Organization PCrllon Contacl~d Dille Bocing ,\nasTasia ,\rscnic" 9/11108 ,\To\ Joe White 2/10109

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Checl< llIe Master Usl to Verily That This is the Corred Revision Belo'" Usa
5207 

5208 

5209 

5210 

5211 

5212 

5213 

5214 

5215 

5216 

5217 

5218 

5219 

5220 

5221 

5222 

5223 

5224 

5225 

5226 

5227 

5228 

5229 

5230 

5231 

5232 

5233 

5234 

5235 

5236 

5237 

5238 

5239 

5240 

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2010-12-23T16:21:31-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
(1)

Volume 3 of 3, Part A 

VI. POST-TRIAL FILINGS 
2
3
4
5
Rebecca 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 13, 2015

No. 04-14-00854-CV

Norris J. DEVOLL,

Appellant

v.

Rebecca DEMONBREUN and William Dowds,

Appellees

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-15237

Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant Norris J. Devoll has filed a notice stating that he is in bankruptcy. The notice 

states that the bankruptcy proceeding is pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the 

Western District of Texas in San Antonio, under Case No. 15-40122G, styled In re: Norris J. 

Devoll. The notice contains an authenticated copy of the page[s] of the bankruptcy petition 

showing that the petition was filed on January 7, 2015. Accordingly, the appeal and all time 

periods are stayed from the date the bankruptcy petition was filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2. 

It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal is ABATED. For administrative purposes, the 

appeal will be treated as a closed case, unless and until it is reinstated in accordance with Rule 

8.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 13th day of January, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
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 LipidViro Tech, Inc. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed
with the Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I Kenneth P.
Hamik, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Registrant.

Dated: 5/15/2006                           /s/Kenneth P. Hamik
      ----------                           --------------------------
                                           Kenneth P. Hamik
                                           President, Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7119

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LESLIE DOMINIC MUSGROVE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, 

at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (2:11-cr-00016-JPB-RWT-11; 

2:15-cv-00036-JPB-RWT)

Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 1, 2018

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leslie Dominic Musgrove, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Michael Adkins, Paul Thomas 

Camilletti, Erin K. Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorneys, Martinsburg, West 

Virginia, Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Elkins, West Virginia; Shawn Angus Morgan, 

STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, Bridgeport, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Leslie Dominic Musgrove seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Musgrove has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 11-9488.

#### Washington *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

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

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

 May 26, 2021 b0519

Order 

Clerk

May 26, 2021

162767 & (35)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 162767

COA: 354524

Ingham CC: 18-001048-FC

RICKY DALE JACK,

Defendant-Appellee.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration of the motion to stay 

is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the March 11, 2021 judgment of the 

Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

question presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to stay the precedential 

effect of the published Court of Appeals opinion is DENIED as moot.

ZAHRA, J., would direct oral argument on the application.
9 June 2016

094PA13-3

#### State v. George Victor Stokes

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of COA (COA12-810 and COA12-810-2)

1. Denied

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Arrest of Judgment

2. Dismissed

3. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for a New Trial

3. Dismissed
1

King, Melanie

From: Turner, Thomas E (DEC) <tom.turner@alaska.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 6:19 PM

To: King, Melanie; Smith, Rebecca T (DEC)

Cc: Igoe, Sheila

Subject: RE: question regarding request to amend subpart IIII

Melanie,

Thank you !

We reviewed 40 CFR 60.4216 yesterday.  Both 60.4216(a) and 60.4216(e) do have date limited language in

them,  therefore, Technical staff  concur with your assertion that EPA shouldn’t need to modify 60.4216(a) and (e).    We

have summarized  the issue and sent e‐mail to upper management.    

Unless otherwise advised, we should be able to proceed.  In addition, is EPA okay with an e‐mail or  do you require

a  new letter indicating our concurrence?     

Please let us know if you have questions or comments.   

Thanks again for your quick response after the 111 (d).    Your time and consideration is greatly appreciated.   

Best Regards,  Tom   

9907) 269‐8123

From: King, Melanie [mailto:King.Melanie@epa.gov]  

Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 8:51 AM

To: Turner, Thomas E (DEC); Smith, Rebecca T (DEC)

Cc: Igoe, Sheila

Subject: question regarding request to amend subpart IIII

Hi Tom and Rebecca,

Question regarding the attached letter – it asks that EPA revise 60.4216(a)‐(f) to extend it to additional remote areas

that are accessible by the FAHS.  In looking at 60.4216(a) and (e), it seems to be that the time period for which those

provisions would be invoked has passed.  Is there any reason why those provisions need to be modified at this time, or

can the modifications for 60.4216 focus on (b)‐(d) and (f)?

Melanie King

Energy Strategies Group

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code D243‐01

RTP, NC  27711

Phone:  (919) 541‐2469

Fax:       (919) 541‐5450

king.melanie@epa.gov