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

Sample and analyze the particulate matter collected in the hopper from each bag house or electrostatic precipitator (ESP) used to control particulate 

matter from potlines. Where more than one bag house or ESP discharges solids to a common hopper, a single sample will be adequate. In cases 

where solids from different compartments of a single bag house or ESP are collected in multiple hoppers or multiple collection sacks, a single 

composite sample will be adequate.

If a wet scrubber is used to control emissions from a potline, sample and analyze the scrubber sludge removed from the scrubber, and estimate the 

annual mass (dry basis) of this sludge. In addition, if applicable, sample and analyze the slurry injected into the scrubber and estimate the annual mass 

(dry basis) of the injected slurry. Finally, if there is an aqueous discharge or blowdown stream from the scrubber, sample and analyze the this liquid and 

estimate the annual volume discharged.

You must report the results of these chemical analyses in this Microsoft® Excel Emission Test Template. If more than one source was tested, you must 

make a copy of the worksheet and update the source ID in order to distinguish between each separate source of particulate matter. After completing 

the worksheet, you must also submit an electronic copy of the emission test report and the chemical analyses. (PDF format preferred).
Electrostatic Precipitator or Dry Alumina Scrubber/Bag House combination Dust

Facility Name and Address Unit Description Process Unit ID Control Device ID*

Alcoa Inc. 1 Park Avenue East, 

Massena, NY 13662

Potline SS198 SA398

Sample ID No. Solid - 446B 5/2/11_____________________

Date Sampled Date(s) Analyzed

5/2/2011 6/9/2011

HAP Metal mg/kg

Antimony 0.23

Beryllium ND

Chromium 0.39

Hexavalent chromium ND

Lead 7.4

Selenium ND

Arsenic 13.9

Cadmium 0.78

Cobalt 1.08

Manganese 0.54

Nickel 157

Sample ID No. Solid - 446B 5/3/11_____________________

Date Sampled Date(s) Analyzed

5/3/2011 6/9/2011

HAP Metal mg/kg

Antimony 0.22

Beryllium 0.4

Chromium 0.54

Hexavalent chromium ND

Lead 10.6

Selenium ND

Arsenic 29.4

Cadmium 1.1

Cobalt 1.8

Manganese 0.58

Nickel 257

Sample ID No. Solid - 446B 5/4/11_____________________

Date Sampled Date(s) Analyzed

5/4/2011 6/9/2011

HAP Metal mg/kg

Antimony 0.59

Beryllium 0.59

Chromium 0.49

Hexavalent chromium ND

Lead 13

Selenium ND

Arsenic 33.5

Cadmium 1.47

Cobalt 2.55

Manganese 0.85

Nickel 405

Sample ID No. Solid - 446B 5/5/11_____________________

Date Sampled Date(s) Analyzed

5/5/2011 6/9/2011

HAP Metal mg/kg

Antimony 0.3

Beryllium 0.29

Chromium 0.42

Hexavalent chromium ND

Lead 10.3

Selenium ND

Arsenic 15.9

Cadmium 1.15

Cobalt 1.06

Manganese 0.51

Nickel 161

Sample ID No. Solid - 446B 5/6/11_____________________

Date Sampled Date(s) Analyzed

5/6/2011 6/9/2011

HAP Metal mg/kg

Antimony 0.33

Beryllium 0.34

Chromium 0.48

Hexavalent chromium ND

Lead 10.5

Selenium ND

Arsenic 18.4

Cadmium 1.27

Cobalt 1.27

Manganese 0.57

Nickel 189

* Enter multiple control device ID Nos. if the results apply to mulitiple control devices.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v TYRONE W. LEE, Fireman Recruit, U. S. Navy, Appellant

No. 29,237

January 31, 1975

*Major D. A. Higley,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused. *Lieutenant Colonel P. N Kress,*USMC, and *Lieutenant Thomas L. Earp,*JAGC, USNR, were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam:

A special court-martial consisting of military judge alone convicted the accused of two offenses in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and imposed a sentence which included a bad-conduct discharge. To give the accused the opportunity to "get a good type discharge,” the judge included in the formal pronouncement of sentence a recommendation that the punitive discharge "be suspended for a period of six months” after completion of confinement. The convening authority approved the sentence, without suspension of the discharge; he noted he had "considered” the trial judge’s recommendation.

In his post-trial review for the supervisory authority, the staff judge advocate did not mention the judge’s recommendation or the convening authority’s comment. As a result, the accused contends the review is prejudicially inadequate. See *United States v Arnold,*21 USCMA 151, 44 CMR 205 (1972). His contention focuses only on the omission of the judge’s recommendation for suspension of the punitive discharge. To that extent, it is incomplete because the recommendation must necessarily be considered with the rejection of it by the convening authority. *United States v Edwards,*23 USCMA 202, 48 CMR 954 (1974). Still, we are not persuaded that the latter so outweighs the former as to compel a conclusion that had the review brought all aspects of the matter to the supervisory authority’s attention, he would not have been inclined to accord the accused any leniency.

The decision of the Court of Military Review is reversed, and the supervisory authority’s action on the sentence is set aside. We return the record of trial to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for submission to the supervisory authority for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN LEE VARNUM,

Petitioner,

v.

RICHARD KIRKLAND,

Respondent.

No. 2:04-cv-2659 GEB CKD P (TEMP)

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On January 25, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner has filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

analysis.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02659-GEB-CKD Document 48 Filed 02/22/16 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 25, 2016, are adopted in full; 

2. Petitioner’s August 19, 2015 filing submitted as a Rule 60(b) motion (Docket No. 40) 

is deemed in substance an unauthorized successive application for a writ of habeas corpus and 

therefore is dismissed; and

3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 

2253.

Dated: February 22, 2016

Case 2:04-cv-02659-GEB-CKD Document 48 Filed 02/22/16 Page 2 of 2
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Astralis
Ltd. (the "Company"), certifies that:

(1)   the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
      December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
      78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.


Dated: March 28, 2003                              /s/ Mike Ajnsztajn
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Mike Ajnsztajn
                                                   Chief Executive Officer


Dated: March 28, 2003                              /s/ Gina Tedesco
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Gina Tedesco
                                                   Chief Financial Officer

      This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v. HAROLD J. C. LEFFEW, Sergeant First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

6 USCMA 46, 19 CMR 172

*47No. 4362

Decided June 17, 1955

Lt Col George M. Thorpe, U. S. Army, for Appellant.

Lt Col Thomas J. Newton, U. S. Army, and 1st Lt Howard S. Marcu, U. S. Army, for Appellee.

Opinion of the Court

ROBERT E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

This is a companion case to United States v. Best, decided this day. The essential facts are virtually the same in both cases. The only difference, for the purposes of this appeal, is that this accused petitioned the Court for a writ of prohibition before the rehearing of the murder charge. The petition was denied before the trial, and no stay of proceedings was granted. This additional application to the Court did not change the factual situation presented in the original appeal, nor in this one. Therefore, our disposition of this case is controlled by our decision in Best.

The findings of guilty as to the larceny and unauthorized absence charges are set aside and the charges are ordered dismissed. The finding of guilty of unpremeditated murder is affirmed. The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Judges LatimeR and BROSMAN concur.
Case No. 14,531.

#### UNITED STATES v. BARTLE.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 236.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

June Term, 1805.

Assault and Battery — Evidence in Mitigation —Moliter Manus.

1. In Virginia, upon the plea of not guilty to an indictment for assault and battery, evidence may be given to the jury in mitigation of the fine which they are to assess.

2. The carpenter and bricklayer who are building a house have a right to remove, gently, all persons who come into the building without authority, if they will not depart upon request.

Indictment for assault and battery on George Coryell.

C. Lee, for defendant

[Samuel Bartle], asked the witness, Preston, whether he had heard Coryell use threats to break up and injure Bartle, or any prior quarrel, in order to discredit the witness Coryell, and to mitigate the fine, which, by the law of Virginia, is to De assessed by the jury.

Mr. Jones, the district attorney,

objected, that it was not a justification, nor could be given in evidence in mitigation of the fine.

But THE COURT permitted the question to be asked.

THE COURT, at the request of the defendant’s counsel, instructed the jury that if they should be of opinion, from the evidence, that Coryell, witnout right, came .into the building on -which Bartle was doing the carpenters’ work, and upon being requested, refused to go out of the building, then Bartle had a right gently to put him out; and that if Bartle, under such circumstances, did gently put Coryell out. without any unnecessary violence, he was not guilty of an assault in so doing.

Mr. Jones moved the court to instruct the jury, that if Bartle came into the apartment where Coryell was, for the sole purpose of turning him out of the building, it was an assault.

But THE COURT (nem. con.) refused to give the instruction as prayed.

THE COURT

was further of opinion that it was not necessary to prove that Coryell was interrupting the business, or impeded it any way, but that the possession was in the carpenter and bricklayer, and either of them had a right to order away all persons having no right to enter the building; and if they refused to depart, had a right to put them out without using any unnecessary violence.
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 4.2

                                   XAIBE, INC.

                              CORPORATE RESOLUTIONS
                                FEBRUARY 23, 2001

         The undersigned representing the sole Director on the Board of
Directors, as presently constituted of Xaibe, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
"Company"), in accordance with the Bylaws of the Company, hereby consent to the
adoption of the following resolutions and the actions taken pursuant to these
resolutions:

         RESOLVED, that the Board ratify and approve the Consulting Agreement
with Steve Fodrie to provide services from June 1999 through December 31, 2000;
and

         FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Company authorize the issuance of 400, 000
shares of Common Stock of the Company to Steve Fodrie under the Consultant
Agreement; and

         FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Company shall issue the shares at a price of
$2.25 per share, being 50% of the bid price on January 16, 2001 and the
aggregate value of the shares representing reasonable compensation for the
services and property received by the Company; and

         FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Company shall file a Registration Statement
on Form S-8 for the purpose of registering the shares issued upon exercise of
the Stock Options granted to Steve Fodrie, and that the form of the Registration
Statement attached is accepted; and

         FURTHER RESOLVED, that the officers of the Company are authorized and
directed to carry out the intent of these Resolutions.

Dated effective on February 26, 2001

    /s/ Jimmy Farmer
---------------------------------------
Jimmy Farmer, President and Director
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 6, 2018

No. 04-17-00786-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF I.V.G. AND I.J.F.,

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-EM5-07068

Honorable Nick Catoe Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due April 2, 2018. Neither the brief nor a motion for extension of 

time has been filed. We therefore order appellant Joshua Ian Fusilier to file, by April 16, 2018, 

appellant’s brief and a written response reasonably explaining his failure to timely file the brief. 

If appellant fails to file a brief and the written response by the date ordered, we will dismiss the 

appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a).

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 6th day of April, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>
                                  Subsidiaries                      Exhibit 21.1


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name                                               Jurisdiction of Incorporation
----                                               -----------------------------
<S>                                                <C>
Firepond UK Ltd                                    England
Firepond Nordic AB                                 Sweden
Firepond Benelux BV                                Netherlands
Firepond Europe BV                                 Netherlands
Firepond Deutschland GmbH                          Germany
Firepond France SAS                                France
Firepond Schweiz AG                                Switzerland
Firepond Japan KK                                  Japan
Firepond Korea Co. Ltd                             Korea
Firepond Australia Pty. Ltd.                       Australia
Firepond International Inc                         Minnesota
Firepond of Michigan, Inc.                         Michigan
Brightware, Inc.                                   Delaware
</TABLE>
#### Kleinschrodt v General Motors Corporation.

(Docket No. 59054.)

*MacDonald, FitzGerald & MacDonald*for plaintiff-appellant. *Munroe & Nobach, P.C.,*for defendant-appellee.

Rehearing denied.

Reported at 402 Mich *ante,*p 381.
No. 40247.

#### Protests 854810-G (C), etc., of Carleton Schaller & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following *Blatter*v. *United States*(C. D. 71) relating to colored cotton cloth from Belgium the court overruled the protests.
EX-31.2
      RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF ARTHUR DE JOYA

              RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION

I, Arthur De Joya, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of GameZnFlix,
Inc.;

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

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

4.  I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) [omitted pursuant to extended compliance period] for
the small business issuer and have:

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

(b)  [omitted pursuant to extended compliance period]

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

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

5.  I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's
auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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

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

Dated: February 1, 2006               /s/ Arthur De Joya
                                      Arthur De Joya,
                                      Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 4.5

 

Schedule of Warrants

 

	
Date Issued
    	
 
    	
Name of Warrant Holder
    	
 
    	
Number of Shares*
    	
 
    	
Type of Shares
    	
 
    	
Exercise Price*
    	
 
    	
Expiration Date
    	
 
    
	
6/27/2011
    	
 
    	
Oxford Finance LLC
    	
 
    	
1,079
    	
 
    	
Common Stock
    	
 
    	
$
    	
83.40
    	
 
    	
12/22/2017
    	
 
    
	
6/27/2011
    	
 
    	
Oxford Finance LLC
    	
 
    	
999
    	
 
    	
Common Stock
    	
 
    	
$
    	
135.00
    	
 
    	
12/22/2017
    	
 
    
	
6/27/2011
    	
 
    	
Oxford Finance LLC
    	
 
    	
888
    	
 
    	
Common Stock
    	
 
    	
$
    	
135.00
    	
 
    	
12/22/2017
    	
 
    
	
12/16/2011
    	
 
    	
Oxford Finance LLC
    	
 
    	
660
    	
 
    	
Common Stock
    	
 
    	
$
    	
68.40
    	
 
    	
12/22/2017
    	
 
    
	
12/16/2011
    	
 
    	
Oxford Finance LLC
    	
 
    	
3,077
    	
 
    	
Common Stock
    	
 
    	
$
    	
68.40
    	
 
    	
12/22/2017
    	
 
    


 




*  Number of Shares and Exercise Price numbers are adjusted to reflect a 1-for-6 reverse stock split effected on October 3, 2013 and a 1-for-10 reverse stock split effected on July 16, 2014.
Before the First Division,

May 26, 1954

No. 58124.

protests 187167-K and 187168-K (Ogdensburg).

#### Kent Stores, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

At the trial, it was agreed that the merchandise “does not contain alcohol,” and the testimony of two witnesses showed that the product in question has been used exclusively over a long period of years by laundries and dry-cleaning establishments for cleaning clothes. The uncontra-dicted evidence establishing that the merchandise contains no alcohol and is used solely for cleaning, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 59070.

protests 244677-K, etc. (New York).

#### Frederick Lunning, Inc., and American Express Company et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wooden animal figures similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 55996, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 59075.

protests 247449-K, etc. (New York).

#### Gorack Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of waste sheepskin scrap similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Fairfield Wool Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 199, C. D. 1653), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### In the Matter of Wilburn A. Levin, Respondent, v Sheldon Hertz, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 1006]

—In a proceeding to compel Sheldon Hertz to appear for jury service, Sheldon Hertz appeals (1), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated August 3, 1995, as directed him to appear before that court for the purpose of reviewing a determination of Herbert Lubka, First *343Deputy County Clerk of Kings County, finding that he is not entitled to an exemption from service as a juror, and referred the matter for a hearing before a Judicial Hearing Officer, and (2) from a judgment of the same court, dated August 23, 1995, which, after a hearing, confirmed the findings and recommendations of the Judicial Hearing Officer made in a report dated August 22, 1995, found that he is not entitled to an exemption from service as a juror, and ordered him to appear for jury service on September 11, 1995.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the facts and the law, and it is adjudged that Sheldon Hertz is exempt from jury service pursuant to Judiciary Law § 512 (5) until January 1, 1996; and it is further,

Ordered that Sheldon Hertz is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

We disagree with the finding of the Judicial Hearing Officer that Mohammed Kahn is a full-time employee of Hertz Realty, Inc. pursuant to Judiciary Law § 512 (5) as that finding is not supported by the evidence in the record. Accordingly, we find that Sheldon Hertz is exempt from jury service pursuant to Judiciary Law § 512 (5) until January 1,1996, at which time such exemptions terminate by reason of chapter 86 of the Laws of 1995 *(see,*L 1995, ch 86).

In view of the foregoing, we decline to address the remaining contentions of Sheldon Hertz. Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.