alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HANNAH MEAD, as Administratrix, etc., of CATHARINE McGUIRE, Deceased, *v.*LUCRETIA C. SMITH, Personally and as Executrix, etc., of CHARLES H. SMITH, Deceased.

*No exception.to a finding of fact is required by the Code of Oivil Procedure, in order to justify its review at General Term.*

After an examination of various questions of fact, and holding that one of such findings was not sustained by the evidence:

The court at General Term said: *“*The findings were, therefore, not correct, and yet for aught that appears they may have been regarded by the court as justifying’the conclusions of law.

“ The question presented, therefore, is whether we are at liberty, without any exceptions to the findings of fact or the conclusions of law, to look into the evidence and determine that material facts which would uphold that conclusion were unsupported by evidence. Section 992 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides, among other things, that *‘*except as prescribed in section 1180 of this act an exception cannot be taken to a ruling upon a question of fact.’ Section 1180 relates only to the trial of challenges to jurors, and it provides that on such trials exceptions may be taken to determinations upon questions of fact. The provision of section 992 is a general one and applies to trials by juries, by the court and by referees; and the note to this section shows that it was intended to abrogate the practice' of excepting to findings of questions of fact upon conflicting evidence. Section 993 declares that a finding without any evidence whatever tending to sustain it is a ruling upon a question of law within the meaning of section 992, and on such a finding an exception would seem to be necessary. (Secs. 992, 991, 995, 996.) The language of section 993 is'not applicable to a case where there is evidence tending to sustain the finding, and the court or referee reaches a conclusion upon conflicting evidence.

*“*The several provisions of the Code are by no means clear and satisfactory, but we think it safe to say that their effect is to provide that no exceptions to a finding upon a controverted question of fact is necessary to be taken in order to justify a review of the *640evidence by this court for the purpose of determining whether the finding was against its weight. We are at liberty, therefore, in this case to reverse the judgment, if we come to the conclusion that the referee erred in his finding of material facts, because his conclusions were against the weight of evidence in the case; and upon this ground we think the judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.”

*James M.*lyddy, for the appellant.

*J. W. Smith,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Davis, P. J.;

Brady, J., concurred.

Present — Davis, P. J., Brady and Ingalls, JJ.

Judgment reversed, new trial^granted, costs to abide event.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5046 

To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through 

the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, to publish a final rule relating 

to nonclinical testing methods. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2024 

Mr. BOOKER (for himself, Mr. SCHMITT, Mr. PAUL, Mr. KING, Mr. BRAUN, 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. LUJA ́N, and Mr. BLUMENTHAL) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 

acting through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 

to publish a final rule relating to nonclinical testing 

methods. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘FDA Modernization 

5 Act 3.0’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 5046 IS

1 SEC. 2. REGULATIONS ON NONCLINICAL TESTING METH2 ODS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

4 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and 

5 Human Services, acting through the Commissioner of 

6 Food and Drugs, shall publish a final rule to implement 

7 section 505(z) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

8 Act (21 U.S.C. 355(z)). 

9 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 505 of the 

10 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355) 

11 is amended by designating the second subsection (z) (re12 lating to clinical trial diversity action plans), as added by 

13 section 3601(a) of the Health Extenders, Improving Ac14 cess to Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP, and Strengthening 

15 Public Health Act of 2022 (division FF of Public Law 

16 117–328), as subsection (aa). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
**Title:** International coal statistics data base
**Link:**Library_130.exe 1980-2010
**SuDoc classification number:**E 3.11/7-11
**Published:** Washington, D.C. : Energy Information Administration : U.S. G.P.O., Supt. of Docs., distributor ; Springfield, VA : National Technical Information Service distributor, 1991.
**Description:** 2 computer disks ; 5 1/4 in. + user's guide
**Operating requirements:** System requirements: IBM PC or compatible; 640K; DOS 3.1 or higher; Lotus 1-2-3 and dBase III+; high density (1.2 MB) disk drive(s) and hard disk.
**Notes:** Issued in 2 disks. Used in preparing paper publication: Annual prospects for world coal trade.
**Subject headings:** Coal trade--Databases--Periodicals. Coal trade--Forecasting--Periodicals.
**GPO item number:** 0429-X
Before the Third Division,

July 28, 1941

No. 46213.

#### Protests 848580-G, etc., of Columbia Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Columbia Co.*v. *United States (5*Cust. Ct. 175, C. D. 395) and Abstract 45951 it was held that the merchandise in question is not subject to the assessment1 of internal revenue tax. The protests were therefcre sustained.
No. 47950.

#### Protests 876588-G, etc., of H. Starr, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that certain of the merchandise in question consists of raeello hats or hoods, not bleached, dyed, colored, or stained, and hot blocked or trimmed, the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 47291. The claim at only 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) was therefore sustained.
EXHIBIT 13.1

    CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 USC SS.1350,
        AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SS.906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2005 of Metalink Ltd. (the "Company") as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on the date hereof (the
"Report"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Tzvika Shukhman, Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, certify that:

     1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: June 25, 2006


                                                       -------------------------

                                                       Tzvika Shukhman
                                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                                       and Chairman of the Board
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Clinton Ryan Ward, Appellant

No. 06

- 19

- 00149

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 114

- 1506

- 18 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Clinton Ryan Ward, has adequately indicated his inability to

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED DECEMBER 3 1 , 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
PETERSON SULLIVAN PLLC
601 Union Street  Suite 2300   Seattle  WA  98101 (206) 382-7777   Fax 382-7700
                          Certified Public Accountants


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

eAcceleration Corp.
Poulsbo, Washington

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Forms S-8 (No. 333-85444), of our report dated February 26, 2003
(which contains an explanatory paragraph concluding that there is a substantial
doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern), relating to
the consolidated financial statements of eAcceleration Corp. appearing in the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002.

/s/ Peterson Sullivan PLLC
Peterson Sullivan PLLC
Seattle, Washington
April 1, 2003
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[Proposed] Order Granting Defendants’ Request for an Extension of Time to file a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to

Compel 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

JOEL HOLLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOM CAREY, WARDEN, et al.,

Defendants.

2:04-cv-2708 LKK PAN (JFM) P

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR AN

EXTENSION TO FILE A

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

Good cause appearing, Defendants are granted a 10 day extension to file a response to

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. Defendants’ opposition shall be due on or before August 3, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2006.

/holl2708.ext

Case 2:04-cv-02708-LKK -EFB Document 45 Filed 07/27/06 Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MIGUEL MENDOZA, §

No. 08-17-00230-CR

Appellant, §

Appeal from the

v. §

41st District Court 

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS, of El Paso County, Texas

§

Appellee. (TC# 20140D02819)

§

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no reversible 

error in the judgments. We therefore affirm the judgments of the court below. This decision 

shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Senior Judge

Before Rodriguez, J., Palafox, J., and McClure, Senior Judge

McClure, Senior Judge (Sitting by Assignment)
OMB Control No. 2060 - 0336 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL OPERATING PERMIT, 40 CFR PART 71 **FORM EMISS -**  **EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS**

INSTRUCTIONS: Use this form to calculate potential to emit (PTE) for applicabil ity purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for each

emissions unit, control device, or alternative operating scenario identified in section I of form **GIS** . If form **FEE** does not need to be submitted with the application, do not calculate actual emis sions.

A. Emissions Unit ID 

# Drum Crusher

B. Identification and Quantification of Emissions Instructions: First, list each air pollutant that is either regulated at the unit or present in major amounts. Second, list any other regulated pollutant (for fee

calculation) emitted at the unit that have not already been listed. Each HAP added to the list in this step may be simply li sted as "HAP". Next, calculate PTE for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purp oses for each listed air pollutant. Do not calculate PTE for air pollutants listed solely for fee purposes. Include all fugitives, including those that do not count towards applicability, w hen calculating actual emissions. At a minimum, round to the nea rest tenth of a ton for yearly values or tenth of a pound for hourly values. Attach examples of calculations that illustrates the methodology used. Air Pollutants (including regulated air pollutants and pollutants for which the source is maj or) Emission Rates CAS No. Actual Annual Emissions (tons/yr) Potential to Emit

Hourly (lb/hr) Annual

(tons/yr) 

# VOM 0.8833 3.87 Benzene 0.000157 0.00006 71 - 43 - 2 Methanol 0.0929 0.4069 67 - 56 - 1 Organic Compounds 0.1207 0.528 7
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 56 (Friday, March 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5400]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Sec.  1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on January 31, 2007, Penick 
Corporation, 33 Industrial Park Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070, 
made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) 
to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Poppy Straw Concentrate 
(9670), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II:
    The company plans on manufacturing Poppy Straw Concentrate for 
internal use and on manufacturing other bulk controlled substance 
intermediates for sale to their customers.
    Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered 
with DEA to manufacture such a substance may file comments or 
objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 
CFR 1301.33(a).
    Any such written comments or objections being sent via regular mail 
should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL, 
Washington, DC 20537; or any being sent via express mail should be sent 
to DEA Headquarters, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/
ODL, 2401 Jefferson-Davis Highway, Alexandria, Virginia 22301; and must 
be filed no later than May 22, 2007.

    Dated: March 19, 2007.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
 [FR Doc. E7-5400 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
14910-13-P]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal AviatioD Administration ONClIRRF.NCES

OUTING S"MSOl

14 CFR Part 39 ()70Cr>

C. r-f.sv<-

OUTING SYMSOl

OUTING SYMSQl

INJnALSiSIG

lNmALS/SiG

• Fax: 202-493-225J.

[Docket No. FAA-2010-++++; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-064-AD]

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FtA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airwokhiness directive (AD) for certain Mod

747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series aUPl1es. This proposed AD would require

modifying certain thrust reverser control systemlWiring to the flap control unit (FeU). '

This proposed AD results from a report of autolatic retraction of the leading edge flaps,

during takeoff due to indications transmitted to the FeU from the thrust reverser control

system. We are proposing this AD to prevent aJomatic retraction of the leading edge

flaps during takeoff, which could result in reducbct climb performance and consequent

collision with terrain and obstacles or forced lan~ing of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this pr1posed AD hy [INSERT DATE 45

DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by anI of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to hJ:!/VV\vw.regUlations.gOv. Follow the

instructions for submiuing comments .

RlN 2120-AA64

Whitney PW4000 Series Engines

Ain'Vorthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 747-400, 747AOOD, and

747AOOF Series Airplanes Equipped with Gene~al Electric CF6-80C2 or Pratt &

I
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-++++; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-064-AD)

. RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 747-400, 747~400D, and

747-400F Series Airplanes Equipped with General Electric CF6-80C2 or Pratt &

Whitney PW4000 Series Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY: We propose fo adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Mod

747-400.747-4000, and 747-400F series airplanes. TIlls proposed AD would require

modifying certain thrust reverser control system wiring to the flap control unit (FeU). Hm.o.lS,lSIG

Olll1NG S'tMBOL

" ,

This proposed AD results from a report of automatic retraction of the leading edge flaps An;

during takeoff due to indications transmitted to the FeU from the thrust reverser control

system. We are proposing this AD to prevent automatic retraction of the leading edge

flaps during takeoff, which could result in reduced climb performance and consequent

collision with terrain and obstacles or forced landing of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by [INSERT DATE 45

NmAl.SIS1G

DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://wwvv.regulations.gov. Follow the

instructions for submitting comments .

• Fax: 202-493-2251.
Before the Third Division,

March 25, 1952

No. 56496.

protests 128712-K (S) and 133465-K (S) (New York).

#### Enrico A. Stein *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the Federal Reserve bank certified dual rates of exchange for the currency involved in the liquidation of the entries for the dates of exportation of the merchandise covered by the entries and that the circumstances relating to the liquidation of the said entries are similar in all material respects to those in Abstract 54732. In view of this stipulation and following the cited decision it was held that the currency of the invoices should have been converted in the manner directed by the judgment of this court in said Abstract 54732, in accordance with Bureau of Customs Circular Letter No. 2675, dated October 19, 1949.
No. 64871.

Suit 5001.

#### United States *v.*The Best Foods, Inc.

Abstract 62865 affirmed July 20, 1960. C.A.D. 751.
#### Julien M. Bentley, *Respondent, v.*P. D. Merriam and others, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Learned, P. J.
No. 48584.

#### Protest 79101-K of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was conclusively established that the articles consist of brass base shells similar to those the subject of *New York Merchandise Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 209, C. D. 607), the record in which case was incorporated herein. Following that decision the claim at 35 percent under paragraph 353 was sustained.
No. 54724.

#### L. Bamberger & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 154801-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Joseph P. Durrett, certifythat:

 

1.               Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Information Resources, Inc.Litigation Contingent Payment Rights Trust;

 

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

 

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)             evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as ofa date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the“Evaluation Date”); and

 

c)              presentedin this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the EvaluationDate;

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

a)              allsignificant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls whichcould adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b)             anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

 

6.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there weresignificant changes in internal controls or in other factors that couldsignificantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our mostrecent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

 
| /s/ JOSEPH P. DURRETT |   |
|-----------------------|--------|
| Joseph P. Durrett     |
| Litigation Trustee    |
| May 24, 2004          |

 

1

----
#### Sharon Degen, Respondent, v Hills Stores Company et al., Appellants.

[635 NYS2d 567]

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court should have granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s action without condition. A party opposing a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) for failure to timely serve a complaint must make an adequate showing of merit *(Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells,*64 NY2d 904, 905; *Stolowitz v Mount Sinai Hosp.,*60 NY2d 685, 686; *McMillan v Ryan,*135 AD2d 1104, *lv denied*71 NY2d 802; *Cummings v St. Joseph’s Hosp. Health Ctr.,*130 AD2d 957). Here, plaintiff appeared on defendants’ motion, but submitted no papers in opposition. Thus, the failure of plaintiff to demonstrate the merits of her claims in response to the CPLR 3012 (b) motion requires the unconditional dismissal of the action *(Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, supra; Young v Bassett Hosp.,*190 AD2d 905; *McMillan v Ryan, supra; Hanley v Callanan Indus.,*60 AD2d 706). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Howe, J.—Dismiss Complaint.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.