alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
California High-Speed Rail Authority 

Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section 

Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact 

Report/Environmental 

Impact Statement 

Appendix 5-A 

Operating Cost Memorandum 

November 2017 
Appendix 5-A 

Operating Cost Memorandum 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

This page intentionally left blank 
Appendix 5-A 

Operating Cost Memorandum 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-A-1 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

APPENDIX 5-A: OPERATING COST MEMORANDUM 

A number of technical appendices included as part of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) have not been 

recreated for the purposes of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS because the information contained 

within the technical appendix would remain applicable to the F-B LGA. Appendix 5-A did not 

require an update for the F-B LGA analysis and therefore is not included in Volume II of the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. To review the appendix in its entirety, 

please refer to the Authority’s Final EIR/EIS: Fresno to Bakersfield Website. 
Appendix 5-A 

Operating Cost Memorandum 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-A-2 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

This page intentionally left blank
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-22-00176-CV 

 

P. S.-C., APPELLANT 

V. 

THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 

 Williamson County, Texas1 

Trial Court No. 20-0047-CPSC1, Honorable Brandy Hallford, Presiding 

August 9, 2022 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 

Appellant, P.S.-C., proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial court’s purported final 

judgment. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

This is the second appeal in trial court cause number 20-0047-CPSC1. In the first 

appeal, we reversed the trial court’s judgment of July 20, 2020, and remanded the case 

1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the 

Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalizations efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. 
2

for reconsideration of appellant’s post-judgment motion for sanctions. P.S.-C. v. Tex. 

Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., No. 07-20-00302-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 10242, 

at *3–4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Dec. 30, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.). On remand, the trial 

court held a hearing on May 5, 2022, and orally denied appellant’s motion for sanctions. 

Appellant appeals from the trial court’s oral ruling. However, no written order has been 

filed with this Court to date.

We have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a final judgment or from an 

interlocutory order made immediately appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con 

Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 

1998) (per curiam). A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending 

parties and claims. Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195.

Because we reversed the trial court’s judgment of July 20, 2020, there is no final 

judgment in this case until the trial court disposes of appellant’s remaining claim for 

sanctions by written order. See McIntyre v. Lexis Nexis, No. 05-11-00809-CV, 2011 Tex. 

App. LEXIS 8402, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 21, 2011, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. 

op.) (“[a] record of the court’s ruling by the court reporter . . . is not an acceptable 

substitute for a written order.”). By letter of June 29, 2021, we notified appellant that it 

did not appear that a final judgment or appealable order had been issued by the trial court 

and directed him to show how we have jurisdiction over this appeal by July 13 or the 

appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant has yet to respond to the 

Court’s inquiry.
3

Appellant has not presented this Court with a final judgment or appealable order. 

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.3(a).

Per Curiam
Before the Third Division,

November 15, 1949

No. 53714.

protests 111855-K/68, etc. (Chicago).

#### Gold Seal Liquors, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED AS
PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            638
<SECURITIES>                                    7,468
<RECEIVABLES>                                   9,880
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                     5,513
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               23,950
<PP&E>                                         92,829
<DEPRECIATION>                                 32,886
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 91,315
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           8,683
<BONDS>                                        32,682
<COMMON>                                        2,740
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                     21,877
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   91,315
<SALES>                                         8,614
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               15,956
<CGS>                                           5,654
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  10,094
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                4,476
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,005
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   627
<INCOME-TAX>                                      282
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               345
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      345
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.19
        

</TABLE>
# C_2007230EN.01001501.xml

| 2.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/15

---

Corrigendum to Culture Programme (2007 to 2013) — Call for proposals — EACEA/26/07 — Networking of organisations carrying out evaluation or impact assessment activities in the field of cultural policies — Networks (Strand 3.2)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 184 of 7 August 2007
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 184 of 7 August 2007

(2007/C 230/11)

On page 8, in point 7:

for:

for:

‘1st October 2007’,

read:

read:

‘15 October 2007’.

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

BRIAN ACOSTA

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 3107

[ January 5, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Caroline C. Shepherd

, Judge; L.T. Case No.

502018CF001345C

.

Thomas Montgomery of Thomas Montgomery, P.A., Belle Glade, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for app ellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY
, D AMOORGIAN and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Chicago - Joliet

Lincoln Service

• Chicago - St. Louis

• 8 trains / day

• 12.3% of route on CN

Texas Eagle Service

• Chicago - San Antonio

• 2 trains / day

• 2.7% of route on CN

Chicago - Carbondale

Illini/Saluki Service

• Chicago - Carbondale

• 4 trains /day

• 99.3% of route on CN

Chicago - New Orleans

City of New Orleans service

• Chicago - New Orleans

• 2 trains /day

• 99.4% of route on CN

Battle Creek - Port Huron

Blue Water Service

• Chicago - Port Huron

• 2 trains / day

• 49.8% of route on CN

Pontiac - Detroit

Wolverine Service

• Chicago - Detroit

• 6 trains / day

• 9.0% of route on CN

San Antonio

St. Louis

New Orleans

Carbondale

Joliet

Battle Creek

Port Huron

Detroit

Pontiac

CHICAGO

Key 

CN portion

Other host(s) portion
EXHIBIT 32.2


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


    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, Thomas
Brandt, Executive Vice President and Co-Chief Executive Officer of Trans-Lux
Corporation, do hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge that:

    (1) The Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2007 being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 Registrant.

    This Certification accompanies this Form 10-Q as an exhibit, but shall not
be deemed as having been filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 or as a separate disclosure document of the Registrant or
the certifying officer.



                                       /s/ Thomas Brandt
                                       -----------------------------
Date:  August 14, 2007                 Thomas Brandt
                                       Executive Vice President and
                                       Co-Chief Executive Officer
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# Su familia se merece los mejores alimentos!

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Su familia se merece los mejores alimentos! 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  National Cancer Institute (U.S.) 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  National Cancer Institute 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1990-2000 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  145 × 29 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ideal Contex Magnum G600 54 Plus at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at the University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  032994972.jpg; 032994972.jpg 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1999
<CASH>                                           1,604
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,668
<ALLOWANCES>                                       611
<INVENTORY>                                     69,488
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               131,661
<PP&E>                                         149,099
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,543
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 480,892
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          127,801
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            67
<OTHER-SE>                                    (12,740)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   480,892
<SALES>                                        118,271
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               118,770
<CGS>                                           83,291
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,510
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,490
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,096
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,969
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,141
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,828
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (541)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,287
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)


</TABLE>
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 101 

Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the development of the Salk polio vaccine 

and its importance in eradicating the incidence of polio. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 6, 2005 

Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. SPECTER, and Mr. LAUTENBERG) submitted 

the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the development of the 

Salk polio vaccine and its importance in eradicating the 

incidence of polio. 

Whereas the epidemic of polio struck the citizens of the 

United States in the early 1950s, causing thousands of 

cases of lingering paralysis and death; 

Whereas the epidemic of polio peaked in 1952, having affected nearly 58,000 people, mainly children and young 

adults; 

Whereas many of those affected by polio needed the assistance of mechanical ventilators in order to breathe, while 

others were crippled and dependent upon crutches for 

mobility; 
2 

•SRES 101 ATS

Whereas University of Pittsburgh faculty member Dr. Jonas 

Salk and his team of researchers developed the first vaccine against polio; 

Whereas, in April 1955, the results of an unprecedented and 

successful nationwide clinical trial of the polio vaccine 

were announced; and 

Whereas the Salk polio vaccine was approved for widespread 

public use at that time: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes the pioneering achievement of 

3 Dr. Jonas Salk and his team of researchers at the 

4 University of Pittsburgh in the development of the 

5 Salk polio vaccine; 

6 (2) expresses its appreciation to— 

7 (A) the family of Dr. Salk for the elimi8 nation of polio, a disease that caused countless 

9 deaths and disabling consequences; 

10 (B) the members of Dr. Salk’s research 

11 team; and 

12 (C) the individuals who generously agreed 

13 to participate in clinical trials to validate the ef14 ficacy of the polio vaccine; and 

15 (3) celebrates with the University of Pittsburgh 

16 on the 50th anniversary of the approval and use of 

17 the Salk polio vaccine. 

Æ
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 Annual Report  of DNA Precious Metals, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K A-3 for the period ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the Company.




3.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.









Date:  February 3, 2015
By: /s/ Josh KimmelJosh KimmelChief Executive Officer
```

[104th Congress Public Law 217]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ217.104]

[[Page 110 STAT. 3020]]

Public Law 104-217
104th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the intent of Congress 
  with respect to the Federal carjacking prohibition. <<NOTE: Oct. 1, 
                         1996 -  [H.R. 3676]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Carjacking 
Correction Act of 1996.>> 

SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 18 USC 2111 note.>>  SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Carjacking Correction Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF INTENT OF CONGRESS IN FEDERAL CARJACKING 
            PROHIBITION.

    Section 2119(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``, including any conduct that, if the conduct occurred in the 
special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, 
would violate section 2241 or 2242 of this title'' after ``(as defined 
in section 1365 of this title''.

    Approved October 1, 1996.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3676 (S. 2006) (S. 2007):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104-787 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996):
            Sept. 17, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 18, considered and passed Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 32 (1996):
            Oct. 1, Presidential statement.

                                  <all>
```
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-2885

___________

In re: Case Corporation, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

Petitioner. * District of Arkansas.

*

* [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: November 18, 1999

Filed: December 7, 1999

___________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Case Corporation, a cotton picker manufacturer, was sued by farmers whose

Case pickers were damaged by fire. Between May 1995 and March 1996, certain Case

employees designated as the "Cotton Picker Improvement Team" (CPIT) met to

conduct "an impartial review of cotton picker losses, including fires, to determine and

implement appropriate corrective and preventative measures." The CPIT meetings

were also attended by Case's outside counsel, who wrote a series of letters to Case's

corporate counsel detailing the information discussed at the meetings. When opposing

counsel requested that Case produce these letters, Case objected, claiming the letters

were protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege and the work product

doctrine. After examining the letters in camera, the district court concluded the letters

were discoverable because the meetings were not held in anticipation of or in
-2-

preparation for litigation, the purpose of the meetings was not to obtain legal advice

from Case's outside counsel, and the letters reported unprivileged "factual matters and

observations and opinions of [Case's] employees." In ordering production of the letters,

the district court found "most telling" a passage in one of the letters in which Case's

outside counsel stated:

During the course of this meeting, as has occurred in the past, the

participants in this committee started to discuss how to defend lawsuits,

and must be re-directed back to the primary purpose of the committee.

This committee was formed to determine whether there is any consistency

to cotton picker fires such that there can be any changes to the cotton

picker either by way of engineering or warnings to reduce frequency of

cotton picker fires. Since most of the participants in these meetings

believe that the primary cause of cotton picker fires is inadequate

maintenance and inadequate training of operators, they start with the idea

of trying to prove that it is not a design or a warning problem. [One of

Case's corporate attorneys] and I have previously discussed the approach

and agreed that this group is to be involved in engineering questions

rather than legal questions. 

Case now petitions this court for a writ of mandamus, seeking to prevent

production of the letters. Having carefully reviewed the documents in question, the

parties' arguments, and the district court's thorough order, we conclude the district court

did not abuse its discretion in ordering production of the letters, see In re Bieter Co.,

16 F.3d 929, 932-33 (8th Cir. 1994), and deny Case's petition for writ of mandamus,

see 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.