alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 54.30-5 Limitations and requirements. ( a ) Class II-L pressure vessels which require stress relief (see table 2 to § 54.01-5) may be mechanically stress relieved provided: ( 1 ) The steels from which they are fabricated do not specifically require thermal stress relief in UCS-56 of Section VIII of the ASME BPVC (incorporated by reference; see § 54.01-1) and have a ratio of yield to ultimate tensile strength not greater than 0.8. For example: A-537 steels could be mechanically stress relieved.
( 2 ) Pressure difference across the shell is not greater than 100 pounds per square inch, thickness of shell is not greater than 1 inch, and the design temperature is not greater than 115 °F.
( 3 ) It will carry liquids of specific gravity no greater than 1.05.
( 4 ) Design details are sufficient to eliminate stress concentrators: Mechanical stress relief is not acceptable in designs involving the following types of welded connections shown in UW-16.1 of Section VIII of the ASME BPVC: ( i ) Types l, m, n, and p because of nonintegral reinforcement. Type o will be acceptable provided the plate, nozzle, and reinforcement assembly are furnace stress relieved and the reinforcement is at least 6 inches or 10t, whichever is larger, from the plate head.
( ii ) Types d, e, and f because expansion and contraction stresses are concentrated at the junction points.
( 5 ) That no slip-on flanges in sizes greater than 2 inches are used.
( 6 ) The categories A and B joints are type one as described in table UW-12 of Section VIII of the ASME BPVC and all categories C and D joints are full penetration welds. See UW-3 of the ASME BPVC for definition of categories.
( b ) When a pressure vessel is to be mechanically stress relieved in accordance with § 54.30-10(a)(1), its maximum allowable working pressure will be 40 percent of the value which would otherwise be determined. However, an increase of this 40 percent factor may be permitted if the stress relief is carried out at a pressure higher than that required by § 54.30-10(a)(1) and an experimental strain analysis is carried out during stress relief. This evaluation should provide information as to the strains at the saddles, welded seams and nozzles as well as the body of the vessel. The hydrostatic pressure applied during stress relief should be such that, except in the case of welds, the stresses in the vessel must closely approach but not exceed 90 percent of the yield stress of the material at the test temperature. The proposed experimental program should be submitted to the Commandant for approval prior to its use. Photo-elastic coating, strain gaging, or a brittle coating technique is suggested for the experimental analysis.
[CGFR 68-82, 33 FR 18828, Dec. 18, 1968, as amended by USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65171, Oct. 31, 2008]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 7, 2022

No. 04-21-00150-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF MARIA LUISA AGUILAR

From the County Court At Law No 1, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020PB5000085-L1

Honorable Hugo Martinez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant Roberto Aguilar Jr. has filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental clerk’s 

record, explaining that certain pleadings not been included in the clerk’s record and requesting 

we order the trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record. Appellant’s motion is 

GRANTED. 

We ORDER the trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record on or before 

January 18, 2022 that contains the following pleadings:

(1) the current trial court docket;

(2) the Emergency Ex-Parte Application for Injunctive Relief;

(3) the December 28, 2020 Temporary Restraining Order;

(4) the January 4, 2021 Motion to Set Aside the December 23, 2020 Ex-Parte 

Temporary Restraining Order;

(5) the January 6, 2021 order extending the temporary restraining order;

(6) the January 20, 2021 order extending the temporary restraining order;

(7) the February 10, 2021 Permanent Injunction;

(8) the order denying the motion for new trial filed by appellant on February 11, 

2021;

(9) the report of the sale of the real property;

(10) the Warranty Deed that emanated from the sale of the property;

(11) the County Clerk’s record of the Warranty Deed. 

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 7th day of January, 2022.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.01





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 Annual Report of TetriDyn Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, David W. Hempstead, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/ David W. Hempstead


David W. Hempstead


Chief Executive Officer


Chief Financial Officer


April 13, 2011





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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Addie E. Baxter, *an Infant, etc.,*Respondent. v. The City of Watertown, *Appellant*.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars'costs •and disbursements.
Exhibit 99.28
                             Selected Information
                      Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 2000-G
                           through December 31, 2000
                    ----------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

           Class A-1        Class A-2        Class A-3        Class A-4        Class A-5        Class B
           6.569%           6.688%           6.67%            6.62%            6.66%            6.92%
           Asset            Asset            Asset            Asset            Asset            Asset
           Backed           Backed           Backed           Backed           Backed           Backed
           Notes            Notes            Notes            Notes            Notes            Notes
           ------------     ------------     ------------     ------------     ------------     -------------



<S>        <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>

Principal
Paid       $114,054,386.49  $          0.00  $          0.00  $          0.00  $          0.00  $          0.00

Interest
Paid       $  1,182,420.00  $  2,006,400.00  $  6,469,900.00  $  4,934,106.67  $  1,394,564.04  $    616,318.27

---------------
Total Servicing Fees Paid:  $  3,333,346.21



</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.2a

                                AMENDED AGREEMENT



         AMENDED AGREEMENT dated this 7th day of January 2005 , by and between
ABC Funding, Inc. (hereinafter "ABC"), a Nevada Corporation, with offices
located at 9160 South 300 West, Sandy, Utah 84070, Harold Barson, President of
ABC and Gary B. Wolff, P.C., counsel to ABC, with offices located at 805 Third
Avenue, New York, New York.


         WHEREAS, ABC is about to file a Registration Statement with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission (hereinafter the "SEC") on Form SB-2
which Registration Statement indicates in Part II, Item 25, offering expenses
totaling sixty eight thousand six hundred one dollars ($68,601) of which fifty
thousand ($50,000) dollars are indicated as legal fees and expenses; and

         WHEREAS, ABC has agreed to pay all such costs as and when necessary and
required, or to otherwise accrue such costs on its books and records until it is
able to pay the full amount due, either from revenues or loans from its
President.

         NOW, THEREFORE, it is herewith agreed as follows: Absent sufficient
revenues to pay these amounts within three (3) months of the date of the ABC
prospectus, ABC's President agrees to loan ABC the funds to cover the balance of
outstanding professional and related fees relating to ABC's prospectus. If and
when loaned, the loan will be evidenced by a non-interest bearing unsecured
corporate note to be treated as a loan until repaid, if and when ABC has the
financial resources to do so. Gary B. Wolff, P.C., ABC's counsel, by signing
this Amended Agreement agrees in full to defer his legal fee in the manner set
forth in this Amended Agreement.

<PAGE>

         The parties hereto understand that the above constitutes a binding
Agreement and that the contents thereof are referred to in the aforesaid
Registration Statement, in the subheading entitled "Liquidity" as found in the
Management's Discussion and Analysis or Plan of Operation section.

         The above constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties hereto.


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed as of the 7th day of January 2005.




ABC FUNDING, INC.

/s/
By: _________________________________
         Harold Barson, President


/s/
By: _________________________________
         Harold Barson, Individually


GARY B. WOLFF, P.C.

/s/
By:_________________________________
         Gary B. Wolff, President
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARK BUCKMAN, ) 

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 2:15-cv-12411-VAR-APP

) Hon. Victoria A. Roberts 

MNS & ASSOCIATES, a New York limited )

liability company; and MICHAEL SHAW, JR.,)

individually )

) 

Defendant. )

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, MARK BUCKMAN, (“Plaintiff”), through his attorney, Agruss Law Firm, LLC, 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), voluntarily dismisses this case, without

prejudice, against Defendant, MNS & ASSOCIATES, LLC and 

DATED: October 9, 2015 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

By:_/s/ Michael S. Agruss_

Michael S. Agruss 

SBN: 6281600

Agruss Law Firm, LLC

4619 N. Ravenswood Ave., Suite 303A

Chicago, IL 60640

Tel: 312-224-4695

Fax: 312-253-4451

michael@agrusslawfirm.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-12411-VAR-APP ECF No. 10 filed 10/09/15 PageID.33 Page 1 of 1
#### Charles C. Bryce and another, Respondents, *v.*August C. L. Meyer and another, *Appellants.*

Judgment and order affirmed. Opinion by

Davis, P. J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis’ Report and 

Recommendation. (R. 19.) At the conclusion of her Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate 

Judge notified the parties that they were required to file any objections within fourteen days of 

service, as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Eastern District of Michigan 

Local Rule 72.1(d), and that “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any 

further right of appeal.” (R. 19, PID 132.) The time to file objections has expired and no 

objections have been filed.1

The Court finds that the parties’ failure to object is a procedural default, waiving review 

of the Magistrate Judge’s findings by this Court. In United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–

50 (6th Cir. 1981), the Sixth Circuit established a rule of procedural default, holding that “a party 

shall file objections with the district court or else waive right to appeal.” And in Thomas v. Arn, 

474 U.S. 140, 144 (1985), the Supreme Court explained that the Sixth Circuit’s waiver-of-

 

1

 Plaintiff filed a response stating that she “accepts” the Report and Recommendation. (R. 

20.) “Based on this, it is clear plaintiff agrees with, rather than objects to, the Report and 

Recommendation.” Tatum v. Upton, No. 1:08cv616, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97505, at *1 n.1 

(E.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2008). 

M.M.O. MANNING, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-12355 

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [12] 

2:15-cv-12355-LJM-SDD Doc # 21 Filed 03/06/17 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 137
2 

appellate-review rule rested on the assumption “that the failure to object may constitute a 

procedural default waiving review even at the district court level.” 474 U.S. at 149; see also 

Garrison v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 10-13990, 2012 WL 1278044, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 

16, 2012) (“The Court is not obligated to review the portions of the report to which no objection 

was made.” (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149–52)). The Court further held that this rule violates 

neither the Federal Magistrates Act nor the Federal Constitution. 

The Court therefore finds that the parties have waived further review of the Magistrate 

Judge’s Report and accepts her recommended disposition. It follows that Defendant’s motion to 

dismiss (R. 12) is GRANTED. As this order resolves this litigation, a separate judgment will 

issue. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 s/Laurie J. Michelson 

 LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

Dated: March 6, 2017 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record 

and any unrepresented parties via the Court=s ECF System to their respective email or First Class 

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on March 6, 2017. 

s/Keisha Jackson 

Case Manager 

2:15-cv-12355-LJM-SDD Doc # 21 Filed 03/06/17 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 138
Exhibit 32.1





|10541 Ashdale St.
        Stanton, CA 90680
        T: 310-643-5300 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 



CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



I, Cipora Lavut, certify, as of the date
hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
this Amendment No. 3 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Aura Systems, Inc. for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2019 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Aura Systems, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.



Date: March 13, 2020

| | By: | /s/ Cipora Lavut
| | --- | ----------------
| |     | Cipora Lavut    
| |     | President       



I, David Mann, certify, as of the date
hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
this Amendment No. 3 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Aura Systems, Inc. for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2019 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Aura Systems, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.



Date: March 13, 2020

| | By: | /s/ David Mann         
| | --- | -----------------------
| |     | David Mann             
| |     | Chief Financial Officer



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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 24-E



                            SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned, constitutes and
appoints DOUGLAS D. BURKETT, PH.D. and BRADLEY C. ANDERSON, and each of them,
his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent with full power of substitution
and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
July 31, 2002, for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission by Zila,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with any and all amendments to such Form
10-K, and to file the same with all exhibits thereto, and all documents in
connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting to
such attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, 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 and to all intents and purposes as he might
or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such
attorneys-in-fact and agents, or each of them, may lawfully do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Special Power of Attorney has been executed as
of November 13, 2002.

                                          /s/ CHRISTOPHER D. JOHNSON
                                          --------------------------
                                              CHRISTOPHER D. JOHNSON
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                    
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996 
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997 
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997 
<CASH>                                         355,849 
<SECURITIES>                                         0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,800 
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0 
<INVENTORY>                                     58,319 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               436,329 
<PP&E>                                       6,053,668 
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,823,927 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,694,813 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          389,496 
<BONDS>                                      2,857,739 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<COMMON>                                             0 
<OTHER-SE>                                     447,578 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,694,813 
<SALES>                                              0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,565,920 
<CGS>                                                0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  546,958 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               606,811 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             119,160 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                292,991 
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            292,991 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                   292,991 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    61.46 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    61.46 
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1
/Letterhead/
                           Schvaneveldt & Company
                        Certified Public Accountant
                        275 East South Temple, #300
                         Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
                               (801) 521-2392

Darrell T. Schvaneveldt, C.P.A.




                       Independent Auditor's Consent
                       -----------------------------

To the Board of Directors
Exhibitronix, Inc.


I consent to the use of my report dated May 12, 1999 of the financial
statements of Exhibitronix, Inc., at December 31, 1998 and 1997, in the
filing of the 10-KSB, and the reference made to me therein.


/S/ Schvaneveldt & Company
Salt Lake City, Utah
May 19, 1999


                                    E-2
#### Gustave White and others, *Respondents, v.*Emanuel Reichart, *Appellant*.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion

*Per Guriam.*
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Friday, March 10, 1995 (42), Para 42.16 Calendar Wednesday Business Dispensed With]
[Page 373]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.42.16  calendar wednesday business dispensed with

  On motion of Mr. ARMEY, by unanimous consent,
  Ordered, That business in order for consideration on Wednesday, March 
15, 1995, under clause 7, rule XXIV, the Calendar Wednesday rule, be 
dispensed with.
```
§ 54.20-3 Design (modifies UW-9, UW-11(a), UW-13, and UW-16). ( a ) Fabrication by welding must be in accordance with the provisions of this part and with part 57 of this subchapter.
( b ) Welding subject to UW-11(a) of Section VIII of the ASME BPVC (incorporated by reference; see § 54.01-1) must be modified as described in § 54.25-8 for radiographic examination.
( c ) A butt-welded joint with one plate edge offset, as shown in Figure UW-13.1(k) of Section VIII of the ASME BPVC, may only be used for circumferential joints of Class II and Class III pressure vessels.
( d ) Attachment welds for nozzles and other connections must be in accordance with UW-16 of Section VIII of the ASME BPVC. When nozzles or connections are made to pressure vessels, as shown in Figure UW-16.1 (a) and (c) of the ASME BPVC, and are welded from one side only, backing strips must be used unless it can be determined visually that a full penetration weld has been achieved.
( e ) When fabricating by welding the minimum joint requirements must be as specified under the column headed “minimum joint requirements” in table 2 to § 54.01-5 for various classes of pressure vessels.
( f ) Joints in Class II or III pressure vessel cargo tanks must meet the following: ( 1 ) Category A and B joints must be type (1) or (2).
( 2 ) Category C and D joints must have full penetration welds extending through the entire thickness of the vessel wall or nozzle wall.
[CGFR 68-82, 33 FR 18828, Dec. 18, 1968, as amended by CGD 77-147, 47 FR 21810, May 20, 1982; CGD 85-061, 54 FR 50964, Dec. 11, 1989; USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65170, Oct. 31, 2008]