alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 636 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     September 7, 2007.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1908) to amend title 35, United States Code, to provide for patent 
reform. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under 
clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate 
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under 
the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except 
those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 
XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All 
points of order against such amendments are waived except those arising under 
clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in 
the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or 
to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 1908 pursuant to this 
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair 
may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
by the Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
# © U.S.O«portni«nta l Trantportotio n O'f'Ce o t tr. e Seaefy y o

f t!OM5oor-a"oo Chief . Documentar

yService s Div . Departmen t o i Transportatio n Washington . D.C . 2059 0 Continenta l Micronesia , Inc . DESIGNATIO NO FAGEN T FO R SERVIC EO FUOJICE . PROCESS . ORDER S DECISION S AN D REQUIREMENT S 

## ••^•'.PTMFNTO F :..v:TOPERAl!ON i

ATTENTION : DOCKE T SECTION . C-5 5 (Nam e o f

Company , pleas e print ) havin g it s principa l of f c e a t ^'^^'^' ^

Pasaheru , Tamuning , Gua m 9693 1 (Address ) hereb y designates , pursuan t t o sectio n4610. 1 o f

Titl e 4 9 o f

th e U.S . Cod e (formerl y sectio n1005(b ) o f th e Federa l A\iutio nAc t o f 1938 . a s amended ) th e perso nname dbelo w a s it s Agent upo nfthomser

v ic e o f al l notice s an dprocess , an dal l orders , decisions , andrequirement s o f

th e Depanmen t

o f Transportatio nma

y b e mad e fo

r an do nbehal f

o f sai dearner . hereb \cancelin g al l pre \iou s designation s o f

agent s mad e b y i

t t o th e DOT . Nam e o f Agen t Hershe l I . Kamen , Senio rVic e Presiden t - Alliances , Regulator y& Policy , Unite d Ai rLines , Inc . (Pleas e Print ) Addres s ^

^^ ^ ^^' ^ ^^' ^ Avenue , NW , Suit e 1100 , Washington , D C 2000 5 Th e Agen t

s o designate dha s writte nhi s nam e an dals o hi s initial s inth e followin g space : Nam e I NWITNES S WHEREOF . (Initials ) Continenta l Micronesia , Inc . ha s cause dthes e present s t o b e signe di nit s nam e b y (Nam e o f Company) Jeffer yA . Smisek , Chie f Executiv e Office r (Pleas e Print ) o f sai dcompany , an dt o b e atteste dunde r it s corporat e sea l b y 

# Bre A T . \W~-

Y

o nthi s 

## ^aA ^ da yof . 

### ^[>\r\\)( \ 

# Of . > T (Secretary , o r

othe r Title ) i i Continenta l Micronesia , Inc .

Company )

ATTEST : 

### By :

(Secretary . '6 T othe r

officer) OST F1010. 5 (1-95 )
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Dataon solar-geophysical activity associated with the major ground level cosmic rayevents of 24 January and 1 September 1971**
 
Parts: OneTwo
 
SuDoc Number:C 55.220:24
Item Number:0273-D-17 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000959789
 
July 31, 2018
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000747

30-OCT-2019

08:13 AM
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 30 , 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00632

- CV

C&G WELDING, INC. , Appellant

V.

DANNY GRAY , Appellee

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013

- 19356

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This appeal is from a judgment signed July 30, 2014 . No clerk’s record has been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record.

On August 20, 2014 , notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days,2

appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

Appellant has not provided this cour t with proof of payment for the record. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Busby.
No. 60554.

#### E. Leitz, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 269965-K (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protest was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION
  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
  (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of TouchIT Technologies, Inc. Inc f.k.a Hotel Management Systems, Inc.  (the “Company”) for the year ended April 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Recep Tanisman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.
  Date:  August 13, 2010
By:
/s/ RecepTanismanName: RecepTanismanTitle:  Chief Executive Officer
 
  This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TouchIT Technologies, Inc, f.k.a Hotel Management Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Hotel Management Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 64567.

#### L. A. Ferm Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/31180 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Case 3:05-cr-05823-RBL Document 110 Filed 06/13/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:05-cr-05823-RBL Document 110 Filed 06/13/06 Page 2 of 2
Bureau of Land Management

Phoenix District Office

Phoenix, AZ

October 2009

Note: Land Status legend located on Map 1

Note: The Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) conducts land use planning only

in the areas administered by BLM. BLM

has no planning authority under the

municipal or county planning legislation

of the State of Arizona.

No warranty is made by BLM for the use

of this map for purposes not intended by

BLM, or to the accuracy, reliability or

completeness of the information shown.

Spatial information may not meet National

Map Accuracy Standards. This information

may be updated without notification.

Map 2

Bradshaw-Harquahala

Planning Area

Outlying Parcels

0 10 20

Miles

Interstate

Highway

Bradshaw-Harquahala

Planning Area

Major Road

Minor Road

Major River, Streams or

Wash

Agua Fria

National Monument

Planning Area

Williams Flagstaff

Payson

Phoenix

AGUA FRIA

NATIONAL

MONUMENT

Bradshaw-Harquahala

Planning Area

Locations of Outlying Parcels

from 40 to 1,280 Acres in Size
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 1 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 2 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 3 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 4 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 5 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 6 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 7 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 8 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 9 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 10 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 11 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 12 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 13 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 14 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 15 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 16 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 17 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 18 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 19 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 20 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 21 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 22 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 23 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 24 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 25 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 26 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 27 of 28
Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 315-2 Filed 09/01/05 Page 28 of 28
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2489

___________

Charles Alexander/Ryahim, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Daryl Gardner, Sgt., Varner Super *

Max, ADC; Corcolis, CO-1, Varner * [UNPUBLISHED]

Super Max, ADC; Floyd Williams, *

CO-1, Varner Super Max, ADC; *

Michelle Rucker, CO-1, Varner *

Super Max, ADC; Ransom Evans, *

Lt., Varner Super Max, ADC; Tim *

Moncrief, Assistant Warden, Varner *

Super Max, ADC; Patricia Kelly, *

Dr., Varner Super Max, ADC *

(originally sued as Kelly); Tanyon *

Norman, Nurse, Varner Super Max, *

ADC (originally sued as Norman); *

Jerry King, Nurse, Varner Super Max, *

ADC (originally sued as King), *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 23, 2008

 Filed: October 27, 2008

___________

Before MELLOY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________
1

The Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

-2-

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Charles Alexander/Ryahim appeals the district court’s1

adverse judgment entered upon a jury verdict in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. On

appeal, Ryahim unsuccessfully requested preparation of a transcript at government

expense, and he has provided no justification for reconsideration of that decision. We

therefore cannot review most of the evidentiary matters about which Ryahim

complains involving such things as admission or exclusion of evidence, judicial bias,

or the jury’s verdict, see Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(1) (discussing appellant’s duty to order

transcript); Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners, 827 F.2d 384, 385-86 (8th

Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (where pro se appellant did not order trial transcript, this court

could not review claims of judicial bias, evidentiary rulings, or sufficiency of

evidence), and we find Ryahim’s remaining arguments to be raised for the first time

on appeal or meritless. 

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and the pending

motions are denied.

______________________________
Searched for **http://www.achp.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.achp.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
Before the Third Division,

July 15, 1953

No. 57428.

#### CIA Industrial Jabonera del Pacifico et al. *v.*United States,

protests 103951-K, etc. (San Diego).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Pioneer Transfer Co.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 101, C. D. 1504), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: gail.hamm@shawgrp.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:29:51 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Gail Hamm

Gastonia, NC 28054
No. 58707.

protests 233908-K (A) and 233908-K (B) (New York).

#### Schering Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose any reason for disturbing the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protests were overruled.
Case 2:05-cv-00791-DMC-MF Document 23 Filed 12/22/2005 Page 1 of 1
 Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 24 Filed 12/27/05 Page 1 of 1
#### George Weber et al., Appellants, v Bay Ridge Medical Group et al., Defendants, and Gilbert J. Kringstein et al., *409Respondents.

[631 NYS2d 874]

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), dated March 16, 1994, as granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff George Weber (hereinafter Mr. Weber) was initially examined by the respondent Dr. Gilbert J. Kringstein (hereinafter Dr. Kringstein) on June 28, 1989. Mr. Weber was referred to Dr. Kringstein by another physician in relation to tempomandibular joint pain he had suffered since January 1989. Upon examining Mr. Weber, Dr. Kringstein concluded that the pain was caused by improperly fitted dentures and advised him to see a dentist concerning new dentures.

On September 6, 1989, Mr. Weber again consulted with Dr. Kringstein. However, Mr. Weber was referred to Dr. Kringstein on this occasion by a different physician for an evaluation of a two-by-two centimeter mass at the left base of the tongue. Dr. Kringstein performed a biopsy on the mass which revealed squamous cell carcinoma.

We conclude that the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them based on the Statute of Limitations defense. The plaintiffs failed to satisfy their burden of adducing prima facie proof that the continuous treatment doctrine was applicable *(see, Grassman v Slovin,*206 AD2d 504; *Werner v Kwee,*148 AD2d 701). Specifically, the plaintiffs failed to show that Dr. Kringstein was providing continuous treatment on September 6, 1989, for the same illness, injury, or condition that existed on June 28, 1989, upon which the underlying claims of medical malpractice are based *(see,*CPLR 214-a; *Grassman v Slovin, supra; Werner v Kwee, supra).*O’Brien, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-30679

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ELIZABETH MARGARET CHILDS, also known as Elizabeth Childs, also 

known as Christina Margaret Childs, also known as Elizabeth Kaufman, also 

known as Stephanie White, also known as Christine Elizabeth Finn, also 

known as Christine Childs Finn, also known as Elizabeth Margaret Kaufman, 

also known as Christine Finn, also known as Beth Childs, also known as 

Margaret Chiles, also known as Liz Chiles, also known as Nicole Childs,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:05-CR-20016-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Elizabeth Margaret Childs pleaded guilty to bank fraud and was 

sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment and 60 months of supervised release. 

Childs pleaded true to violating numerous conditions of her supervised release

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 7, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-30679 Document: 00512621544 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2014
No. 13-30679

and now appeals the 36-month prison sentence she received after her 

supervised release was revoked.

First, Childs argues that the district court gave inadequate reasons for 

its sentence. Because Childs objected only generally to the reasonableness of 

her sentence, review of the procedural reasonableness of her sentence is for 

plain error. See United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 497 (5th Cir. 2012)

(citing United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009) (explaining 

that plain error review applies on appeal where defendant failed to raise any 

of the specific claims of procedural error before the district court)). Given that 

the district court was presented with and considered many reasons for a 

sentence outside the guidelines policy statement range and these reasons 

addressed the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, Childs fails to show that 

under plain error review her sentence was not procedurally reasonable. See 

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); Kippers, 685 F.3d at 497-

99.

To the extent Childs argues that the district court erred in failing to give 

her notice of its intent to upwardly depart from the guidelines policy statement 

range, such notice is not required in revocation proceedings. See United States 

v. Santirosa, 94 F. App’x 231, 231-32 (5th Cir. 2004); FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.1.

Finally, to the extent Childs suggests that her 36-month sentence is 

substantively unreasonable, she has not shown that the district court abused 

its discretion given that she had absconded for years and committed additional 

crimes during that period. See Kippers, 685 F.3d at 500-01.

AFFIRMED. 

2

 Case: 13-30679 Document: 00512621544 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2014
Exhibit 8.1
 Country ofIncorporationNavios Maritime Acquisition Corporation 
   Subsidiaries
    
    Marshall Is.Aegean Sea Maritime Holdings Inc.
    
    Marshall Is.Amorgos Shipping Corporation
    
    Marshall Is.Andros Shipping Corporation
    
    Marshall Is.Antiparos Shipping Corporation
    
    Marshall Is.Crete Shipping Corporation
    
    Marshall Is.Folegandros Shipping Corporation
    
    Marshall Is.Ikaria Shipping Corporation
    
    Marshall Is.Ios Shipping Corporation
    
    Cayman Is.Kos Shipping Corporation
    
    Marshall Is.Mytilene Shipping Corporation
    
    Marshall Is.Navios Acquisition Finance (U.S.) Inc.
    
    DelawareRhodes Shipping Corporation
    
    Marshall Is.Serifos Shipping Corporation
    
    Marshall Is.Shinyo Dream Limited
    
    Hong KongShinyo Kannika Limited
    
    Hong KongShinyo Kieran Limited
    
    British Virgin Is.Shinyo Loyalty Limited
    
    Hong KongShinyo Navigator Limited
    
    Hong KongShinyo Ocean Limited
    
    Hong KongShinyo Saowalak Limited
    
    British Virgin Is.Sifnos Shipping Corporation
    
    Marshall Is.Skiathos Shipping Corporation
    
    Marshall Is.Skopelos Shipping Corporation
    
    Cayman Is.Syros Shipping Corporation
    
    Marshall Is.Thera Shipping Corporation
    
    Marshall Is.Tinos Shipping Corporation
    
    Marshall Is.