alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BATTERY LOG
It is critical that each battery is uniquely identified to track charge/discharge cycles and record cell voltage. This will allow proper monitoring of 

battery cycle count and cell voltages.

GENERAL INFORMATION

KEEP THEM DRY - As a general rule, water and electronics do not mix, and that usually applies to LiPo batteries. 

AVOID OVER-DISCHARGING LiPo packs should never be drained to nominal voltage. Draining the battery too far causes 

irreversible damage

INSPECT FOR DAMAGE - LiPo packs should be regularly inspected for damage, as a small problem can result in a meltdown 

over time. A telltale sign of LiPo damage is swollen or puffed-up cells. This indicates irreversible damage and a potentially 

hazardous situation.

CHECK THE VOLTAGE MONTHLY - Use a battery monitor to check its voltage. While LiPo batteries hold their charge well in 

storage, they do slowly lose voltage over time. When storing packs long term, check the voltage and capacity monthly. 

STORAGE

STORE WITH 50-70% CHARGE - LiPo packs should be stored with a partial charge. Check the battery’s instructions and 

determine the recommended voltage or capacity level for storage. Most manufacturers suggest storing LiPos between 50% 

and 70% charge capacity and voltage.

CHARGING

Be absolutely sure that the Lithium Polymer charger settings are correct for the battery pack being charged – both voltage 

and current settings.

The lifetime of a LiPo battery is measured in charge cycles. The number of charge cycles that a LiPo can tolerate depends on 

several factors. Batteries will be taken out of services after 75-100 charge/discharge cycles depending on the cell voltage and 

charge retention.
It is critical that each battery is uniquely identified to track charge/discharge cycles and record cell voltage. This will allow proper monitoring of 

battery cycle count and cell voltages.

Battery Log
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Gordmans Stores, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended January 29, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael D. James, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Michael D. JamesMichael D. James Chief Financial Officer, Vice President and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) March 31, 2011


This certification is being furnished solely to accompany this report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the registrant, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
[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:****Grain and feed weekly summaryand statistics [electronic resource] /**
 
2003:Oct 31
2004:Nov 12| Dec 31
 
SuDoc Number:A 88.18/4-2:
Item Number:0024-C-08 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000519059
 
February 6, 2020
Exhibit 32.3

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

UCDP FINANCE, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the quarterly report of UCDP Finance, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 28, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John R.
Sprouls certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 7, 2008



By:

/s/ John R. SproulsJohn R. Sprouls President (Principal Executive Officer)
#### United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, by Sabol, trustee, *v.*Local 227, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America et al., Appellants.

Argued May 6, 1969.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*Walter Phipps, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Richard II. Markowitz,*with him *Samuel Rothbard*and *Abraham L. Friedman,*of the New Jersey Bar, and *Wilderman, Markowitz <& Kirschner,*for appellee.

October 9, 1969:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

After a careful study of the record in this case, we are convinced that under controlling decisions the decree of the court below must be affirmed.

It is so ordered. Costs to be paid by the appellee.
EX-10.9(a)



 Exhibit 10.9(a) 
 June 1, 2014 
 Altis Partners (Jersey) Limited 

2 Hill Street 
 St Helier, Jersey 

Channel Islands JE2 4UA 
 Attention:
Mr. Stephen Hedgecock 
  

	 	Re:	Management Agreement Renewals 

 Dear
Mr. Hedgecock: 
 We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below
(the “Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2015 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 

 

	 	•	 	 CTA Capital LLC 


  

	 	•	 	 Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Emerging CTA Portfolio L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 CMF Altis Partners Master Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Institutional Futures Portfolio L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Global Futures Fund Ltd. 


  

	 	•	 	 Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 


 Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Mrs. Alice Lonero at the address above or fax to 212-296-6868. If you have any
questions I can be reached at 212-296-1304. 
 Very truly yours, 

 

			
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Alice Lonero

		 	  

		 	 Alice Lonero

		 	Chief Financial Officer 
	
	ALTIS PARTNERS (JERSEY) LIMITED
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Alex Brunwin    /s/ N. Reeve - Gray

		 	  



			
		
	Print Name:	 	 ALEX BRUNWIN    N. REEVE - GRAY



			
	AL/sr
#### Tice & Lynch, Inc., *v.*United States

No. 7495.

Entry No. 765398.

Invoice dated London, England, May 1, 1946.

Certified May 1, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 3, 1946.

(Decided December 30, 1947)

*Jordan & Klingaman*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the f ollowing stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Ann Smith, *Respondent, v.*Ceylon W. Carr, Appellant.

Motion to open default denied, without costs.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8514 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for an annual increase 

in stipend for books, supplies, equipment, and other educational costs 

under Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program of Department of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 22, 2024 

Mr. VASQUEZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for an 

annual increase in stipend for books, supplies, equipment, and other educational costs under Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program of Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

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 ‘‘Veteran Education As5 sistance Adjustment Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8514 IH

1 SEC. 2. ANNUAL INCREASE IN STIPEND FOR BOOKS, SUP2 PLIES, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER EDU3 CATIONAL COSTS UNDER POST-9/11 EDU4 CATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM OF DE5 PARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

6 Section 3313 of title 38, United States Code, is 

7 amended— 

8 (1) in subsection (c)(1)(B)(iv)(I), by striking 

9 ‘‘$1,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,400’’; 

10 (2) in subsection (e)(2)(B)(i), by striking 

11 ‘‘$1,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,400’’; and 

12 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub13 section: 

14 ‘‘(m) ANNUAL INCREASE IN STIPEND FOR BOOKS, 

15 SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL

16 COSTS.—With respect to fiscal year 2025 and each subse17 quent fiscal year, the Secretary shall provide a percentage 

18 increase (rounded to the nearest dollar) in the amounts 

19 payable under subsections (c)(1)(B)(iv)(I), (e)(2)(B)(i), 

20 and (g)(3)(A)(iii), equal to the percentage by which— 

21 ‘‘(1) the Consumer Price Index for all urban 

22 consumers (U.S. city average) for the 12-month pe23 riod ending on the June 30 preceding the beginning 

24 of the fiscal year for which the increase is made, ex25 ceeds 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8514 IH

1 ‘‘(2) the Consumer Price Index for the 12- 

2 month period preceding the 12-month period de3 scribed in paragraph (1).’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6679** 

KIM ANTONIO GRIFFIN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v.
WILLARD R. HALL , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Loretta Copeland Biggs , District Judge. ( 1:14

- cv - 00007

- LCB

- JEP )

Submitted : July 23, 2015 Decided: July 28, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Kim Antonio Griffin , Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III , NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kim Antonio Griffin seeks to appeal the district court’s order

a cceptin g the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issu es a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012)
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies rel ief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v . Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Griffin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented3 in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD–0162–14

BRANDON SCOTT BLASDELL, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE NINTH COURT OF APPEALS

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

MEYERS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

DISSENTING OPINION

The trial court excluded the defense expert’s testimony regarding the weaponfocus effect, finding that the testimony was not relevant. The court of appeals agreed.

We remanded the case to the court of appeals for a determination regarding the reliability

of the evidence. On remand, the court of appeals concluded that the defense did not

provide sufficient information to allow the trial court to determine that the expert’s

testimony was reliable, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the
Blasdell dissent - Page 2

testimony. The majority has joined the court of appeals in seconding that opinion.

The record indicates that at a hearing outside the presence of the jury, the court

questioned the defense expert witness about the weapon-focus effect:

THE COURT: Okay. Then that’s — weapon focus issue. Do you have any

specific opinion that that happened in this case, the weapon distracted or

reduced the focus on the person’s —

EXPERT: Yes.

THE COURT: — face?

EXPERT: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you have an opinion? Tell me about that.

EXPERT: Well, she identified that — the weapon on the description sheet

as a revolver.

THE COURT: And that — and that alone, you’re saying, based on your

studies, et cetera, would indicate that —

EXPERT: It tells me that she did look at the gun.

THE COURT: Well, but ultimately we’re talking about misidentification or

bias or whatever you want to call it, with respect to a photo spread and her

identification as to the photo spread. Do you have an opinion that that

played a role in this case or just that it could because we know generally

that’s something that happens?

EXPERT: I’d say it would have to be a “possibly.”

THE COURT: “Possibly.” Okay.

Based upon the conduct of the hearing, it is clear that the reliability of the weapon-focus

effect was never challenged, by the court or by the State. The court even said, “we know
Blasdell dissent - Page 3

generally that’s something that happens” in questioning the expert about the weaponfocus issue, and the State never objected to this questioning. Because the judge was the

one asking the expert his opinion about the weapon-focus effect, the defense was not

required to lay the foundation for the reliability of the theory. The trial court’s ruling was

that the evidence was not relevant to this particular case, but the reliability of the theory

itself was never disputed. I think it is totally wrong and unfair for the court of appeals

and the majority to procedurally default the Appellant in this case for something that the

trial court never even called into question. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

Filed: September 16, 2015

Publish
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 

          - [FEMA-1688-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa (FEMA-1688-DR), dated March 14, 2007, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

March 26, 2007. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of March 14, 2007: Mahaska and Polk Counties for Public Assistance. 

                        (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 Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs, 97.036, Public                               ( print page 15710)                            Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)                    

R. David Paulison, 

Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management and Director of FEMA.

 [FR Doc. E7-6074 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
From: Culligan, Kevin 

Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 9:31 PM 

To: 'Higgins, Cortney' 

Subject: two mnior fixes 

Makes internally consistent with discussion re: State plans 

In the version of the preamble I have, this is on page 361 – the change is the addition of the 

language in all caps in the second paragraph. (The first paragraph is just there to help you find 

this). 

VIII. State Plans 

A. Overview 

After the EPA establishes the state-specific rate-based CO2 goals in the emission 

guidelines, as described in Section VII above, each state must then develop, adopt, and submit its 

state plan under CAA section 111(d). To do so, the state must first determine the emission 

performance level it will include in its plan, which entails deciding whether it will adopt the ratebased CO2 goal set by the EPA or translate the rate-based goal to a mass-based goal. 

The state must then establish an emission standard or set of emission standards, along 

with implementing and enforcing measures AND OTHER PERMISSIBLE PLAN MEASURES, that 

will achieve a level of emission performance that is equal to or better than the level specified in the 

state plan. 

Fixed typo 

We expect that many states will consider the opportunities offered for their respective economies

economics as a result of this investment.
Order entered December 21, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00624-CR

No. 05-16-00625-CR

JAMAL DESMOND MCCLENTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F11-26246-I & F16-75306-I

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES these appeals.

On December 7, 2016, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why 

appellant’s brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the December 9, 2016 findings that: (1) 

appellant desires to pursue the appeals; (2) appellant is indigent and represented by courtappointed counsel Lawrence Mitchell; (3) counsel’s explanation for the delay in filing 

appellant’s brief is due to medical reasons; and (4) counsel requests an additional thirty days to 

file the brief.

We ORDER appellant to file his brief within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

10/23/2015 COA Case No. 12-15-00214-CR

CORDERO-VARELA, JORGE Tr. Ct. No. 114-0767-12 PD-1383-15

On this day, this Court has granted the Appellant's Pro Se motion for an extension

of time in which to file the Petition for Discretionary Review. The time to file the

petition has been extended to Tuesday, December 29, 2015. NO FURTHER

EXTENSIONS WILL BE ENTERTAINED. NOTE: Petition For Discretionary

Review must be filed with The Court of Criminal Appeals.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

CATHY LUSK

1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354

TYLER, TX 75701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

FILE COPY
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 11 (Thursday, January 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2275-2276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-574]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-120-001]


Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Compliance Filing

January 10, 2007.
    Take notice that on January 8, 2007, Stingray Pipeline Company, 
L.L.C. (Stingray) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Third Revised Volume No. 1, Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 2, to become 
effective January 21, 2007.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance 
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests 
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of 
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest 
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the 
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu 
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons 
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies 
of the protest to

[[Page 2276]]

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8acccfd8c9c5e4e6e3e4efd9fffafae5f8fecaeceff8e9a4ede5fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="61272433222e0f0d080f04321411110e131521070413024f060e17">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-574 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>