alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 62810.

#### John Gross and Company v. United States,

protest 58/6771 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
September 04 , 2013 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations West Building, Room W12 - 140 1200 New Jersey

Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 Subject: Clarification to Petition for Exemption,

FAA - 2013 - 0676 Delta Engineering for Project ODA - 226 5 - 02 Title 14 CFR § 25.869 (a)(4) , amendment 25 - 113 Subject: Request for immediate exemption from Title 14 CFR § 25 . 869 (a)( 4 ) for the wire and cable located within certain metal electronic articles. 

### Update to request : This request for exemption from Title 14 CFR § 25.869 (a)( 4 ) for the wire and cable located within certain metal electronic article s , where the electronic article is located in a non - fire zone. The request does not request relief from Title 14 CFR § 25.869 (a)(4) related to wire and cable wrapped with non - flammable material. 

### Additional Data related to request :  The STC will be issued as a ONE - ONLY STC.  The aircraft is not used for Part 121 or Part 129 service.  ODA project ODA - 2265 - 02 is for an aircraft that is owned and operated by the U.S. Government, and they are full y aware of the request.  The equipment does not replace any type certified articles.  The equipment will be located in the cabin area.  Id entify

the types and quantities of wire in each of the electronic articles would require the article to be opened resulting in the article being damaged or destroyed.  Damaging or destro yi ng the electronic articles would not be in the public’s interest and would not change the level of safety related to the public.Sincerel y, John A. Moritz Delta Engineering 13 DRBA Way New Castle County

Airport New Castle, Delaware 1 9720 Phone (302) 325 - 9337 E Mail jamoritz@delta - engineering.com
No. 61547.

#### Compass Instrument & Optical Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 305967-K (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
### Auwrnv. TEXAS 78711

October 8, 1975
The Honorable Lynn Cooksey Opinion No. H- 711 Criminal District Attorney Bowie. County Re: Whether there is an office of ,412 Texas Boulevard ” District Attorney for the Fifth Judicial Texarkana, Texas 75501 District. Dear Mr. Cooksey: You request our opinion onwhether a recent amendment to article 322, V.T.C.S., has the effect of creating the office ofDistrict Attorney for the Fifth Judicial District. This office was expressly abolished as ofJanuary 1, 1969, o~,nthEdcreation ofthe office of Criminal District Attorney for Bowie County by section 8of article 326 k-58, V. T. C.S. The amendatory Act inquestion is Senate Bill No. 574, Acts 1975, 64th Leg., ch. 378, p. 983. The title to this Act states only that it is “An Act amending Article 322, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925, as amended.
. . .” Article 322, V. T. C.S., provides for the election of aDistrict Attorney in 44 numbered judicial districts and for the election ofa Criminal District Attorney in several named counties. The 1975 amendment republished the entire article but the only change consisted ofthe deletion ofthe name ofHarris County from the list of counties which are to elect a Criminal ‘District Attorney. The paramount rule in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intention ofthe Legislature. Dolan v. Walker, 49 S.W. 2d 695, 697 (Tex. Sup. 1932). The issue here is whether the Legislature, by re-enacting and publishing at length the entire article amended pursuant to the requirements ofarticle 3, section 36 ofthe Texas Constitutionintended to re-establish an office which has been expressly abolished by another statute, thereby impliedly repealing section 8ofarticle 326 k-58, V. T.C.S. The only legislative intent discernible from the title and actual change made by the 1.975 amendment ofarticle 322, V. T. C-S., is an intent to delete Harris County from the list of counties which are to elect Criminal District Attorneys.

p.3062The Honorable Lynn Cooksey : page 2 (H-711)

Repeals by implication are never favored and the Legislature is presumed toknow ofan existing law on the same subject, and when the later act is silent as to the older law, inthis case section 8of article 326 k-58, V. T.C.S., the presumption is that its continued operation was intended, unless thev present acontradiction so positive that the purpose of repeal is manifest. Cole v. State ex rel Cobolini, 170 S.W. 1036, 1037 (Tex. Sup. 1914). Inour opinion, the Legislature did not intend to re-establish the office of District Attorney ofthe Fifth Judicial District by its amendment of article 322 and the reference to that nonexistent office was inadvertent. See Attorney General Opinion H-687( 1975). The express abolition ofthe office by sxion 8of article 326 k~-58, V. T. C.S., is the clearest evidence ofthe Legislature’s intent on the subject and must prevail. 53 Tex. Jur. 2d Statutes $161. SUMMARY There is no office of District Attorney inthe Fifth Judicial District. Xery truly yours,

Attorney General of Texas APPROVED:

Opinion Committee jad:

p.3063
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.                  

###### Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation

# TIME AND DATE: 

Electronic Board of Trustees Meeting to be held via email exchanges Wednesday, October 4, 2023, 8:00 a.m. (MST-AZ), through Wednesday, October 11, 2023, 4:00 p.m. (MST-AZ).

# PLACE: 

Board of Trustees meeting held via email exchanges.

# STATUS: 

                        This special meeting of the Board of Trustees, to be held Electronically (in accordance with the Operating Procedures of the Board of Trustees of the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation), is open to the public. Members of the public who would like to observe this electronic meeting should email David Brown at                         *brown@udall.gov*                         prior to Wednesday, October 4, 2023, 8:00 a.m. (MST-AZ).                    

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

(1) Call to Order and Chair's Remarks and (2) Board Operating Procedures Revisions (including a resolution regarding Amendment of Operating Procedures of the Board of Trustees of the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation).

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

David P. Brown, Executive Director, 434 E. University Blvd., Suite 300, Tucson, AZ, 85705, (520) 901-8560.

Dated: September 25, 2023.

David P. Brown

Executive Director, Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation.

[FR Doc. 2023-21283 Filed 9-25-23; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6820-FN-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1493

GERALD A. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-98- 2723-MJG) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 24, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald A. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Albert David Copperthite, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Gerald Smith appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on Smith’s employment discrimination claim filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e - 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record andthe district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration , No. CA-98- 2723-MJG (D. Md. Mar. 12, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF NORTHSIGHT CAPITAL, INC. PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of Northsight Capital, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steve Nickolas, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, based on my knowledge, 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.  /s/ Steve Nickolas Steve Nickolas Chief Financial Officer April 15, 2010 This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 65 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                   House Calendar No. 1
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 65

                           [Report No. 110-1]

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5) to amend the Higher 
 Education Act of 1965 to reduce interest rates for student borrowers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 16, 2007

    Ms. Matsui, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5) to amend the Higher 
 Education Act of 1965 to reduce interest rates for student borrowers.

    Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5) to amend the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 to reduce interest rates for student borrowers. 
All points of order against the bill and against its consideration are 
waived except those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill 
shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion 
except: (1) three hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
Labor; and (2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 5 pursuant to this resolution, 
notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may 
postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the 
Speaker.
                                                   House Calendar No. 1

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. RES. 65

                           [Report No. 110-1]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5) to amend the Higher 
 Education Act of 1965 to reduce interest rates for student borrowers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            January 16, 2007

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4497-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4497-DR), dated March 28, 2020, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This change occurred on June 29, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Robert D. Samaan, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

This action terminates the appointment of Gracia B. Szczech as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2023-20989 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
From: mcmahonglen@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:49:03 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,

Glen McMahon

Winsted, CT 06098
From: cslewis39@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:18:09 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,

Carolyn Lewis

Marion, IN 46953
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 23, 2019

No. 04-19-00241-CR

Antonio LONGORIA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR1413

The Honorable Velia J. Meza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

A trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right of appeal has been filed in this appeal. 

The trial court has certified that the underlying criminal case “is a plea-bargain case, and the 

defendant has NO right of appeal.” 

We ORDER the trial court clerk to file an electronic clerk’s record within TEN DAYS of 

the date of this order containing the following documents:

1. all pre-trial orders and the related pre-trial motions;

2. the Court’s Admonishments, the defendant’s Waiver, Consent to Stipulation of 

Testimony, and any other stipulations, and all other documents relating to the 

defendant’s plea bargain;

3. the Judgment;

4. all postjudgment motions and orders;

5. the Notice of Appeal;

6. the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal; and

7. the Criminal Docket Sheet.
We DIRECT the clerk of this court to send a copy of this order to the attorneys of record, 

the trial court clerk, and the court reporter(s) responsible for preparing the reporter’s record in 

this appeal.

All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court. 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 23rd day of April, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Northern Technologies International Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Philip M. Lynch, Chairman of the Board and Co-Chief Executive 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 results of operations of the Company. |

 

|                 |   | Chairman of the Board of   Directors & Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) |
|-----------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |   |                                                                                             |
| Philip M. Lynch |   |                                                                                             |

Lino Lakes, MinnesotaJanuary 14, 2005
Before the Second Division,

April 2, 1963

No. 67552.

#### Oxford International Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 62/10373, etc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bicycle horns and sirens similar in all material respects to those the subject of G. *Joannou Cycle Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 172, C.D. 2253), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.