alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"Patrick Chesnut","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/chesnutp\/","title":"Notice of Updated National Courts Building Protocols - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"VnS32nVtad\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/notice-of-updated-national-courts-building-protocols\/\">Notice of Updated National Courts Building Protocols<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/notice-of-updated-national-courts-building-protocols\/embed\/#?secret=VnS32nVtad\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Notice of Updated National Courts Building Protocols” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"VnS32nVtad\" 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":"Effective November 10, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will no longer require masks to be worn when entering the National Courts Building and connecting buildings. The full order is available on the court’s website."}
fpts_ex101.htm

EXHIBIT 10.1

 

PROMISSORY NOTE EXTENSION AGREEMENT

 

This Promissory Note Extension Agreement, hereinafter referred to as “Extension Agreement,” entered into this Twenty third day of January, 2017, by and between First Priority Tax Solutions INC. hereinafter called “Maker” and Holly1 LLC, hereinafter called the “Payee”.

 

WHEREAS, Maker and Payee have entered into a Promissory Note dated June 1, 2014 for the amount of Eighty Five Thousand Dollars ($85,000), hereinafter referred to as the “Note”. The Note had a maturity date of June 1, 2016.

 

WHEREAS, Maker and Payee desire to enter into this Extension Agreement in order to extend the maturity date of the Note to December 31, 2017.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, it is duly agreed by both Maker and Payee to extend the due date of the Note to December 31, 2017.

 

All other provisions of the original Note shall prevail unless otherwise written.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Maker and Payee have duly executed this Extension Agreement, extending the maturity date of the Note as of the day and year first written above.

 


	
 
	
FIRST PRIORITY TAX SOLUTIONS, INC.

		
	
 
	
By: 
	
/s/ Michael Heitz
	
		
	
 
	
Michael Heitz, President

		
	
 
	
Holly1 LLC

		
	
 
	
By:
	
/s/ Rebecca McKinnon
	
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	Rebecca McKinnon
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 DORIAN E. RAMIREZ

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

November 4, 2015

Hon. Eric S. Stewart

Attorney at Law

615 N. Upper Broadway, Suite 2000

Corpus Christi, TX 78401-0781

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Clinton W. Twaddell III

Branscomb, PC

802 N. Carancahua, Ste. 1900

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Grady Brian Jolley

Branscomb PC

711 Navarro, Suite 500

San Antonio, TX 78205

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13-15-00485-CV

Tr.Ct.No. 2014-PR-00189-2A

Style: David Charles Loeb v. David M. Coover

Enclosed please find a copy of an order issued by this Court on this date.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch

Enc.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 126 (Thursday, June 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 40145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16668]



[[Page 40145]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: United States Postal Service Board of Governors

TIMES AND DATES: 10:00 a.m., Monday, July 10, 2000; 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, 
July 11, 2000.

PLACE: Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 
L'Enfant Plaza, SW., in the Benjamin Franklin Room.

STATUS: July 10 (Closed); July 11 (Open).

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:   
Monday, July 10--10:00 a.m. (Closed)
1. Financial Performance and Schedule for Fiscal Year 2001 Integrated 
Financial Plan.
2. Strategic Planning.
3. Rate Case Update.
4. International Funds Transfer.
5. Priority Mail Processing Centers (PMPCs).
6. Personnel Matters.
7. Compensation Issues.
Tuesday, July--8:30 a.m. (Open)
1. Minutes of the Previous Meeting, June 5-6, 2000.
2. Remarks of the Postmaster General/Chief Executive Officer.
3. Board Resolution on Capital Funding.
4. Quarterly Report on Service Performance.
5. Quarterly Report on Financial Results.
6. Capital Investments.
    a. Surface-Air Management System (SAMS).
    b. Delivery Operations Information System (DOIS).
    c. 362 Automated Flat Sorting Machine (AFSM) 100s.
    d. Mail Evaluation Instrument (MERLIN).
7. Tentative Agenda for the August 7-8, 2000, meeting in Reno, Nevada.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: David G. Hunter, Secretary of the 
Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 
20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.

David G. Hunter,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16668 Filed 6-27-00; 3:33 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
I, Michael P. Huseby, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CC VHoldings, LLC and CC V Holdings Finance, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made,not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrants as of, and for,the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants’ other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrants and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrants,including their consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) [Reserved];  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrants’ disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrants’ internal control over financialreporting that occurred during theregistrants’ most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrants’ fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrants’ internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrants’ other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrants’auditors and the audit committee of the registrants’ board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrants’ ability to record,process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrants’internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 17, 2004
/s/ Michael P. HusebyMichael P. HusebyChief Financial Officer
Compr essors/Engines Dehydrators Pipelines Pneumatics/Contr ols T

anks V

alves W ells Other 

## PRO Fact Sheet No. 301 

# Convert Pneumatics to Mechanical Controls Partner Reported Opportunities (PROs) for Reducing Methane Emissions



### T

echnology/Practice Overview Description Remote, non-electrified gas pr oduction, pr ocessing, transmission, and distribution sites often use natural gas power ed pneumatic contr o llers for automatic pr ocess contr ol, r esulting in significant methane emissions to the atmospher e. Some partners have r eported converting these contr ols to mechanical devices. The most common mechanical contr ol device is a level contr oller, which translates the position of a liquid-level float to the drain valve position with mechanical linkages. Ther e is no gas usage in either the pr ocess measur ement or valve actuation, and r e liability is very high. 

### Operating Requirements Exter nal mechanical linkages must be maintained and well lubricated. 

### Applicability This technology is applicable to all gas-power ed pneumatic contr ollers wher e the pr ocess measur ement can be close to the flow contr ol valve.



### Methane Emissions Reductions The mechanical device eliminates both the pr ocess contr oller bleed and the valve actuation vent emissions. A rule of thumb for evaluating gas emissions fr om pr ocess contr ols is one scf per minute of gas for each contr ol loop, consisting of the pr ocess measur ement and valve actuator

. 

### Applicable sector(s):
Pr oduction Pr ocessing T ransmission and Distribution



### Partners re porting this PRO: ExxonMobil Pr oduction Company 

### Other re lated PROs: Convert Gas Pneumatic Contr ols to Instrument Air



### Methane Savings: 500 Mcf per year Costs Capital Costs (including installation) <$1,000 $1,000 – $10,000 >$10,000 Operating and Maintenance Costs (annual) <$100 $100-$1,000 >$1,000 

### Payback (Y ears) 0–1 1–3 3–10 >10 

### Benefits Reducing methane emissions was a primar y justification for the project.

### Economic Analysis Basis for Costs and Savings Methane emissions savings of 500 Mcf per year ar e associated with modifying one liquid-level contr ol loop, consisting of the pr ocess measur ement and valve actuation, assuming a methane content in the natural gas of 95 per cent. 

### Discussion This technology can pay back quickly. The cost of a mechanical pr ocess contr ol system involves both the pr ocess measur ement equipment and the valve mechanical actuator . This cost may also r equir e some piping modifications to bring the contr ol valve into close pr oximity with the pr ocess measur ement, or alter natively , to bring the pr ocess measur ement (e.g., pr essur e) close to the flow contr ol valve.

Last updated: September 2004
{"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":"2017-2088: Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Research Corporation Tech. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"W0hFo0cDBM\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-07-2018-2017-2088-mylan-pharmaceuticals-inc-v-research-corporation-tech-audio-uploaded\/\">2017-2088: Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Research Corporation Tech.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-07-2018-2017-2088-mylan-pharmaceuticals-inc-v-research-corporation-tech-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=W0hFo0cDBM\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2017-2088: Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Research Corporation Tech.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"W0hFo0cDBM\" 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: Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Research Corporation Tech. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2017-2088 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

          - [Order No. 1109] 

                    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u),                           ( print page 41626)                        the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:                 

*Whereas,*                     the City of Memphis, Tennessee, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 77, has applied to expand the scope of manufacturing authority for FTZ Subzone 77B (Brother Industries (U.S.A.) Inc. facilities in Bartlett, Shelby County, Tennessee) to include production of postage franking machines and electronic business equipment under FTZ procedures (FTZ Doc. 50-99; filed 10-18-99);                

*Whereas,*                     notice inviting public comment was given in                     **Federal Register**                     (64 FR 60766, 11-8-99); and,                 

*Whereas,*                     the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application is in the public interest;                

*Now, Therefore,*                     the Board hereby approves the request subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.                 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of June 2000. 

Troy H. Cribb, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. 

Attest: 

Dennis Puccinelli,

Acting Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 00-17107 Filed 7-5-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4543 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4543

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               August 9 (legislative day, August 8), 1994

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the United States courthouse to be constructed at 907 
Richland Street in Columbia, South Carolina, as the ``Matthew J. Perry, 
                    Jr. United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse to be constructed at 907 Richland 
Street in Columbia, South Carolina, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Matthew J. Perry, Jr. United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Matthew J. 
Perry, Jr. United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives August 8, 1994.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### THOMAS JEFFERSON CLASSICAL ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL, PIEDMONT COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL, and LINCOLN CHARTER SCHOOL v. CLEVELAND COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION d/b/a CLEVELAND COUNTY SCHOOLS

No. 400A15

Filed 10 June 2016

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals,_N.C. App._, 778 S.E.2d 295 (2015), affirming a judgment entered on 29 January 2015 by Judge Jesse B. Caldwell, III in Superior Court, Cleveland County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 18 May 2016 in session in the Old Burke County Courthouse in the City of Morganton pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-10(a).

*Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, RA., by Richard A. Vinroot and Matthew F. Tilley, for 'plaintiff-appellees.*

*Tharrington Smith, L.L.P., by Deborah R. Stagner, for defendant-appellant.*

*Christine T. Scheef Staff Attorney, and Allison B. Schafer, Legal Counsel, North Carolina School Boards Association, amicus curiae.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                         ENDOVASCULAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                      (in thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    YEAR ENDED DECEMBER  31,
                                                            -----------------------------------------
                                                               1996           1995            1994
                                                            -----------    -----------    -----------
<S>                                                         <C>            <C>            <C>         
Net loss                                                    $   (13,537)   $    (8,262)   $    (7,880)
                                                            ===========    ===========    ===========

NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                8,132             --            $--

Common shares and options granted (using the
    treasury stock method assuming an
    initial public offering price of
    $12.00) between December 15, 1994,
    included pursuant to Securities and
    exchange Commission rules
                                                                     47             --             --

    Shares used in computing net loss per share                   8,179             --             --

                                                            ===========    ===========    ===========
Net loss per share                                          $     (1.66)            --             --
                                                            ===========    ===========    ===========

PRO FORMA NET LOSS PER SHARE

Weighted average common shares outstanding                           --          1,018            919
Series A, B, C and D convertible preferred stock                     --          5,118          4,575
Common stock options (using the treasury stock method)               --            187            139
                                                            -----------    -----------    -----------
    Shares used in computing pro forma net loss per share            --          6,323          5,633
                                                            -----------    -----------    -----------

Pro forma net loss per share                                         --    $     (1.31)   $     (1.40)
                                                            ===========    ===========    ===========
</TABLE>



                                       50