alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for Willowbridge Strategic Trust
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>          
<CIK>               0001005006
<NAME>              Willowbridge Strategic Trust
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                  Oct-1-1995
<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1995
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos
<CASH>                          1,000
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,000
<PP&E>                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           0
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                      1,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,000
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
V

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4796

For the relief of the estate of Wallace B. Sawyer, Jr.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 19, 1994

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

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of the estate of Wallace B. Sawyer, Jr.

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

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF CLAIM.

4 The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any

5 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the

6 estate of Wallace B. Sawyer, Jr., the sum of $608,715.40.

7 The payment required by this section shall be in full satis8 faction of all claims that the estate or family of Wallace

9 B. Sawyer, Jr., may have against the United States aris10 ing from the death of Wallace B. Sawyer, Jr., following

11 an October 5, 1986, missile attack on the airplane in
2

•HR 4796 IH

1 which he was a crewmember performing services for and

2 at the direction of the United States.

3 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AGENT AND ATTORNEY FEES.

4 It shall be unlawful for an amount exceeding 10 per5 cent of the payment required by section 1 to be paid to

6 or received by any agent or attorney for any service ren7 dered in connection with the payment. Any person or es8 tate violating this section shall be guilty of an infraction,

9 and shall be subject to a fine in the amount provided in

10 title 18, United States Code.

Æ
#### COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. LANSING COMMUNITY HOTEL CORPORATION, Respondent.

No. 11221.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 8, 1951.

Theron L. Caudle, Charles Oliphant, Ellis N. Slack, Charles E. Lowery, all of Washington, D. C., Virginia Adams, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Charles E. Ecker, Lansing, Mich., and R. M. O’Hara, Detroit, Mich., for respondent.

Before ALLEN, McALLISTER, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The above cause coming on to be heard upon the transcript of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the arguments of counsel, and the court being duly advised,

Now, therefore, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the decision herein reviewed be and is hereby affirmed in accordance with the opinion of the Tax Court of the United States. 14 T.C. 183.
# 

**NIOSH Guide to the Selection and Use of Particulate Respirators Certified Under 42 CFR 84**
**DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 96-101**January 1996

*Disclaimer: Mention of any company name or product does not constitute endorsement by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health*
CONTENTS

*Forward
*Abbreviations*
*Acknowledgements*
***I. Summary for Respirator Users***
***II. Detailed Guidelines for Use***
*Appendices*
*References*
*NIOSH Respirator User Notice (May 2, 1997)*

Go back to the NIOSH home pageor to the CDC home page.*This page was last updated on July 30, 1999.**
#### § 101.805 Assignment of frequencies to mobile stations.

The assignment of frequencies to mobile stations in this service will not be limited to a single licensee within any area. However, geographical limits within which mobile units may operate may be imposed by the Commission.
Editorial Note on Part 74
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 74 appear at 64 FR 4055, Jan. 27, 1999.

§ 74.792 Low power TV and TV translator station protected contour. ( a ) A low power TV or TV translator will be protected from interference from other low power TV, TV translator, or Class A TV stations within the following predicted contours: ( 1 ) 43 dBu for stations on Channels 2 through 6;
( 2 ) 48 dBu for stations on Channels 7 through 13; and
( 3 ) 51 dBu for stations on Channels 14 through 36.
( b ) The low power TV or TV translator protected contour is calculated from the authorized effective radiated power and antenna height above average terrain, using the F(50,90) signal propagation method specified in § 73.619(b)(1) of this chapter.
[69 FR 69335, Nov. 29, 2004, as amended at 86 FR 66214, Nov. 22, 2021; 87 FR 58206, Sept. 23, 2022; 89 FR 7265, Feb. 1, 2024]
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4851

To waive the time limitation specified by law for the award of certain military

decorations in order to allow the posthumous award of the congressional

medal of honor to Doris Miller for actions while a member of the

Navy during World War II.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 28, 1994

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas (for herself, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mrs. MEEK, Mr. BACCHUS of Florida, Mr. EMERSON, Mr.

MEEHAN, Mr. SKEEN, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MONTGOMERY, Mr. RANGEL, Ms. DELAURO, Mrs. THURMAN, Miss COLLINS of Michigan, Mr.

WYNN, Ms. WATERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. WATT,

Mr. HASTINGS, Mr. SCOTT, Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey, Mr. OWENS, Ms.

MCKINNEY, Mr. HILLIARD, Ms. NORTON, Mr. TUCKER, Mr. WHEAT, Mr.

STOKES, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr. JEFFERSON,

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana, Mr. MFUME, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. FLAKE, Mr.

EDWARDS of Texas, Mr. FROST, Mr. TEJEDA, Mr. BRYANT, Mr.

SARPALIUS, Mr. WILSON, Mr. LAUGHLIN, Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas,

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. COLEMAN, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr.

PICKLE, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. CHAPMAN, Mr. ANDREWS of Texas, Mr. DE LA

GARZA, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. BROOKS, Mr. WASHINGTON, and Mr. STENHOLM) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Armed Services

A BILL

To waive the time limitation specified by law for the award

of certain military decorations in order to allow the posthumous award of the congressional medal of honor to

Doris Miller for actions while a member of the Navy

during World War II.
2

•HR 4851 IH

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

3 That the time limitations specified in section 6248(a) of

4 title 10, United States Code, shall not apply with respect

5 to the posthumous award of the congressional medal of

6 honor under section 6241 of such title to Doris Miller

7 (service number 356–12–35) for acts of heroism during

8 World War II while a member of the United States Navy.

Æ
#### H. A. WATERMAN *v.*D. G. HOLMES.

*Beginning and conclusion of plea in abatement.*

-A plea in abatement, alleging matters *dehors*the record, which both begins and concludes with praying judgment, is defective.

Eeplevin. Heard, upon general demurrer to the defendant’s plea in abatement at the December Term, 1889, Powers, J., presiding. Demurrer sustained. The defendant excepts.

The plea in abatement was as follows:

“ Now comes the defendant and prays the writ in the above ■cause may be abated because the writ was served by the officer before he took any bond to the said defendant in this case, and said writ was served in no other way or time, all which defendant is ready to verify by proof and the writ, officer’s return and bond in said case filed, wherefore defendant prays said writ may ■be abated and for his costs.”

*Sendee & Fisk*and *P>. A.*Sunt, for the defendant.

*G. P. PLogan*and *P. S. Gleed,*for the plaintiff.

The plea is defective since, while alleging matters *dehors*the ■record, it begins with a prayer for j udgment. *Smith*v. *Chase,*•39 Yt. 89.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Taft, J.

The plea in abatement begins and concludes with praying judgment. The matter pleaded is *dehors*the record. 'The plea should not begin, but conclude, with such prayer. In *464*Landon*v. *Roberts,*20 Vt. 286, the plea was defective for other-reasons, and in *Gray*v. Flowers, 24 Vt. 533, it was treated as-a motion to dismiss; the precise point was not adjudged in either case. The *commencement*and *conclusion*of a plea, when, alike, define its character; are forms which tend to clearness and precision; in fact, “they make the plea,” and a mistake in. either in a plea in abatement is fatal. Whatever may have-been written against the technical rules applied to pleas in abate» ment, a form which determines whether a plea is in abatement" or bar is certainly not useless, and a prayer of judgment in the-beginning should not be regarded as surplusage as suggested by the learned judge in the first case above cited.

*Judgment a-ffirmed and muse*remanded..
§ 54.624 Site and service substitutions. ( a ) Health care providers or Consortium Leaders may request a site or service substitution if: ( 1 ) The substitution is provided for in the contract, within the change clause, or constitutes a minor modification;
( 2 ) The site is an eligible health care provider and the service is an eligible service under the Telecommunications Program or the Healthcare Connect Fund Program;
( 3 ) The substitution does not violate any contract provision or state, Tribal, or local procurement laws; and
( 4 ) The requested change is within the scope of the controlling Request for Services, including any applicable RFP used in the competitive bidding process. *(b) Filing deadline.* An applicant must file their request for a site or service change to the Administrator no later than the service delivery deadline as defined in § 54.626.
Effective Date Note
Effective Date Note: At 84 FR 54979, Oct. 11, 2019, § 54.624 was revised. This section contains information collection and recordkeeping requirements and will not become effective until approval has been given by the Office of Management and Budget.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.956 Settlement conferences. Parties are encouraged to use alternative dispute resolution procedures to settle disputes. *See* subpart E of this part. In any contested proceeding, the Commission, in its discretion, may direct the parties or their attorneys to appear before it for a conference. ( a ) The purposes of such conferences are: ( 1 ) To obtain admissions of fact or stipulations between the parties as to any or all of the matters in controversy;
( 2 ) To consider the necessity for or desirability of amendments to the pleadings, or of additional pleadings or evidentiary submissions;
( 3 ) To consider simplification or narrowing of the issues;
( 4 ) To encourage settlement of the matters in controversy by agreement between the parties; and
( 5 ) To consider other matters that may aid in the resolution of the contested proceeding.
( b ) Conferences are scheduled by the Commission at a time and place it may designate, to be conducted in person or by telephone conference call.
( c ) The failure of any party or attorney, following reasonable notice, to appear at a scheduled conference will be deemed a failure to prosecute, subjecting that party's application or petition to dismissal by the Commission.
[63 FR 68935, Dec. 14, 1998]
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Vasan Thatham, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of NetFabric Holdings,
Inc. (the" Company").

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The Company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d 15(e) for the Company and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) [Reserved]

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Company's most recent fiscal
quarter (the Company's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Company's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Company's auditors and the audit committee of the Company's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal control over
financial reporting.

August 21, 2006

                                /s/ Vasan Thatham
                                --------------------------------
                                Name: Vasan Thatham
                                Title: Chief Financial Officer
Strafford

No. 80-279

#### Town of Lee v. Durham District Court

February 23, 1981

*Charles F. Hartnett,*of Dover, by brief and orally, for the plaintiff.

*Barrett & McNeill,*of Durham *(Malcolm R. McNeill, Jr.,*orally), for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

On June 26, 1979, under RSA ch. 169 (1977) (current version at RSA 169-D (Supp. 1979) ), the Town of Lee’s chief of police filed a juvenile petition in the Durham District Court which was originally entitled *State v. Karin M. ...*(a minor; Henry . . . , parent). The juvenile was placed in a foster home and eventually on February 26, 1980, the Town of Lee was designated to be the legally responsible unit.

On February 28, 1980, counsel for the plaintiff, Town of Lee, filed an appeal in the superior court based primarily on á claim of imposition of liability on the town without notice or hearing. A confused and inadequate record reveals that somehow in the course of the appeal the district court was designated the named party defendant with orders of notice and service joining the juvenile’s parents as parties to the appeal.

After a hearing, the Superior Court *{Randall,*J.), on a “petition to stay order of district court and enjoin liability,” ruled “[t]hat the only issue to be heard in this [superior] court is who is ultimately liable for expenses incurred.” Recognizing that “you [the district court] shouldn’t be a party, . . . ,” it granted a motion to dismiss filed by counsel for the Durham District Court. The plaintiff Town of Lee appeals.

*81We affirm. *Cf. Melton v. Personnel Comm’n,*119 N.H. 272, 278, 401 A.2d 1060, 1064 (1979). *But see Benton v. Dist. Ct.,*111 N.H. 64, 274 A.2d 876 (1971).

*Remanded.*

Grimes, C.J., and Douglas, J., did not sit.
#### § 73.49 AM transmission system fencing requirements.

Antenna towers having radio frequency potential at the base (series fed, folded unipole, and insulated base antennas) must be enclosed within effective locked fences or other enclosures. Ready access must be provided to each antenna tower base for meter reading and maintenance purposes at all times. However, individual tower fences need not be installed if the towers are contained within a protective property fence.

[51 FR 2707, Jan. 21, 1986]
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 Transportation

###### Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

# AGENCY:

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

# Times and Dates:

August 22, 2006, 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., and August 23, 2006, 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. 

# Place:

Hilton Chicago O'Hare Airport, O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, IL 60666. 

# Status:

Open to the public. 

# Matters to be Considered:

                        An overview of the Unified Carrier                               ( print page 49501)                            Registration Plan and Agreement requirements set forth under section 4305 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, August 10, 2005); and the administrative functioning of the Board.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. William Quade, (202) 366-2172, Director, Office of Safety Programs, FMCSA, or Mr. Bryan Price, (412) 395-4816, Transportation Specialist, FMCSA Pennsylvania Division Office, office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t. Monday through Friday except Federal holidays. 

Dated: August 21, 2006. 

Pamela Pelcovits, 

Director, Office of Policy, Plans, and Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 06-7125 Filed 8-21-06; 12:57 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Bertram J. COHEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-1101.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 19, 2004.

Bertram Cohen, Eglin, Fla, for Appellant, pro se.

Rebecca Meiklejohn and Douglas M. Tween, Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (R. Hewitt Pate, Acting Assistant Attorney General; James M. Griffin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; John J. Powers III and James J. Fredericks, Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, on the brief), for Appellee.

Present: WALKER, Chief Judge, CARDAMONE, and MCLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of said district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Defendant-appellant Bertram Cohen, *pro se,*appeals from the February 4, 2003 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Richard C. Casey, *Judge)*directing him, as part of his sentence, to pay restitution in the amount of $300,000.00 to the victim of his fraud. We affirm.

Cohen’s principal argument on appeal is that the district court erred in failing to discuss on the record the mandatory factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2). That argument, however, is foreclosed by our decision in *United States v. Walker,*353 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir.2003) (“[W]e will not vacate and remand ... solely by reason of the sentencing judge’s failure to indicate consideration of the mandatory factors.”). We have carefully considered all of Cohen’s other arguments and find them, too, to be without merit.

*13For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.