alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>              1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                                 891
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       12,596
<ALLOWANCES>                                        (1,039)
<INVENTORY>                                          6,484
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    22,167
<PP&E>                                              88,907
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (34,012)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     100,992
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               13,994
<BONDS>                                             20,090
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             4,993
<OTHER-SE>                                          28,627
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       100,992
<SALES>                                             15,825
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    15,825
<CGS>                                                9,621
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       15,886
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     6,265
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     749
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (234)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          (527)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (761)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (761)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.15)
        


</TABLE>
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-13-00767-CV

GARRETT OPERATORS, INC., Appellant

V.

CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellee

Appeal from the 215th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2012-20088).

TO THE 215TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 22nd day of January 1015, the case upon appeal to revise 

or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by 

the trial court on June 18, 2013. After submitting the case on 

the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the 

parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains 

no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial 

court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

Judgment rendered January 22, 1015.
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and 

Huddle. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Radack.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in 

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

April 3, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFMONTANASUPREMECOURTCAUSENO.DA21-0051STATEOFMONTANA,Plaintiff/Appellees,vs.MICHAELBONACORSI,Defendant/Appellant.ORDERFORADDITIONALTIMEFORFILINGOPENINGBRIEFUponreviewoftheDefendant/AppellantFourthMotionforAdditionalTimeforFilingOpeningBrief,andgoodcausetherefrom;ItisherebyORDEREDthattheDefendant/Appellantshallhaveanadditionalthirty(30)daysfromJuly16,2021,duedatetofiletheirOpeningBrief.Defendant/AppellantOpeningBriefwillbedueAugust16,2021.cc:JamiRebsomAttorneyGeneral1Electronically signed by:Mike McGrathChief Justice, Montana Supreme CourtJuly 15 202107/15/2021Case Number: DA 21-0051
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 306 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF ROTUNDA FOR HOLOCAUST DAYS OF 

4 REMEMBRANCE CEREMONY. 

5 The Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used 

6 on May 1, 2008, for a ceremony as part of the commemo7 ration of the days of remembrance of victims of the 
2 

•HCON 306 EH 

1 Holocaust. Physical preparations for the ceremony shall 

2 be carried out in accordance with such conditions as the 

3 Architect of the Capitol may prescribe. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 10, 

2008. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 306 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Permitting the use of the Rotunda of the Capitol 

caust. the days of remembrance of victims of the Holofor a ceremony as part of the commemoration of
Case No. 9,969.

#### MURTAGH v. PHILADELPHIA et al.

[1 Wkly. Notes Cas. 37.]

Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 19, 1874.

Restraining Erection of Public Works — Act of 8th April, 1846 — Jurisdiction of Federal Courts.

Application for preliminary injunction by plaintiff, who was a citizen of New York, to restrain the completion of a bridge over the river Schuylkill, at an elevation of only sixteen feet above high-water mark, on the ground that it would, at that level (which was four or five feet lower than that of the former bridge), interfere with the navigation of plaintiff's barges. The Schuylkill is a tidal and navigable river, lying wholly within the state of Pennsylvania.

Affidavits and depositions were read by both parties as to the facts set forth in the bill.

Thomas Hart, Jr., and Mr. Tilghman, for plaintiff.

Thayer & Sellers, for Keystone Bridge Co.

The City Solicitor and R. N. Willson, for the City of Philadelphia.

THE COURT

refused the preliminary injunction, saying that where a suit in equity was merely for the enforcement of a legal right, and there was any disputable question upon the merits, it was not in general, proper to grant an injunction before final hearing or a judgment at law; and that the reason for not awarding an interlocutory injunction was here the stronger because the case depended wholly upon questions of right under the laws of Pennsylvania, and the law of that state (Act April 8, 1846; Purd. Dig. 599, pi. 55) provided that no court within the county of Philadelphia should enjoin the erection of public works until question of title and damages should be finally decided by a common-law court
No. 42002.

#### Protests 833111-G, etc., of Milnor, Inc. (Honolulu).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

The evidence was held to fall far short of sustaining the claim that these trays are smokers’ articles and there was no evidence anywhere in the record that they are not gold plated. On the record presented the protests were overruled.
No. 56689.

protest 178579-K (New York).

#### A. Judson Murray & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6385

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GABRIEL VASHON SEAY, a/k/a Gabriel Seay,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:14-cr-00614-DKC-1; 8:15-cv-03367-

DKC)

Submitted: September 24, 2018 Decided: October 10, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gabriel Vashon Seay, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Regina Sykes, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gabriel Vashon Seay seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 relief 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 motion 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 Seay has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 313 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 313

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF ROTUNDA FOR CEREMONY HONORING THOSE SERVING IN 
              AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ.

    (a) Use of Rotunda.--The Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be 
used on March 13, 2008, for a ceremony to honor the 5 years of service 
and sacrifice of our

              

 troops and their families in the war in Iraq and to remember those who 
are serving our Nation in Afghanistan and throughout the world.
    (b) Preparations.--Physical preparations for the ceremony referred 
to in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance with such 
conditions as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 10, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 313

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to 
  honor the 5 years of service and sacrifice of our troops and their 
 families in the war in Iraq and to remember those who are serving our 
            Nation in Afghanistan and throughout the world.
```
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8891]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE


Notice with Respect to List of Countries Denying Fair Market 
Opportunities for Government-Funded Airport Construction Projects

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice with respect to a list of countries denying fair market 
opportunities for products, suppliers or bidders of the United States 
in airport construction projects.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: Date of Publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dawn Shackleford, Director for 
International Procurement, Office of the United States Trade 
Representative, (202) 395-9461, or Behnaz Kibria, Assistant General 
Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, (202) 395-
9589.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 533 of the Airport and Airway Improvement 
Act of 1982, as amended (49 U.S.C. 50104), the United States Trade 
Representative (USTR) has determined not to include any countries on 
the list of countries that deny fair market opportunities for U.S. 
products, suppliers, or bidders in foreign government-funded airport 
construction projects.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 533 of the Airport and Airway 
Improvement Act of 1982, as amended by section 115 of the Airport and 
Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987, Public Law 100-223 
(codified at 49 U.S.C. 50104) (``the Act''), requires USTR to decide 
whether any foreign countries have denied fair market opportunities to 
U.S. products, suppliers, or bidders in connection with airport 
construction projects of $500,000 or more that are funded in whole or 
in part by the governments of such countries. The list of such 
countries must be published in the Federal Register. For the purposes 
of the Act, USTR has decided not to include any countries on the list 
of countries that deny fair market opportunities for U.S. products, 
suppliers, or bidders in foreign government-funded airport construction 
projects.

Susan C. Schwab,
United States Trade Representative.
[FR Doc. E7-8891 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-W7-P
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 386 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas the text of the Declaration of Independence was 

adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 

1776, and the engrossed copy of the Declaration of Independence was signed by most of the delegates in the Second Continental Congress on August 2, 1776; 
2 

•HCON 386 EH 

Whereas August 2, 2008, marks the 232d anniversary of the 

signing of the engrossed copy of the Declaration of Independence; 

Whereas the signing of the Declaration of Independence 

marked the formal dissolution of the ties of the thirteen 

American colonies with Great Britain, the beginning of 

their statehood and national identity, and the dawning of 

a new era of freedom in America and the world; 

Whereas these Founding Fathers, relying on the direction 

from and protection of Divine Providence, pledged to 

each other their lives, their fortunes, and their Sacred 

honor in defense of this action; 

Whereas the Declaration of Independence paved the way for 

the birth of the Republic; 

Whereas the Declaration of Independence has become part of 

the national culture, and its principles are part of the 

consciousness of all Americans; 

Whereas the fundamental genius of the United States is embodied in the Declaration’s recognition that ‘‘all men are 

created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator 

with certain unalienable rights, that among these are 

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’’; 

Whereas the principle that the rights of man are bestowed by 

the Creator and are unalienable was derived from Scripture, which antedates the existence from any government; 

Whereas the Declaration of Independence affirms that governments are instituted to protect those rights; and 

Whereas the Declaration acknowledged these self-evident 

Truths, which constituted one of the most revolutionary 

philosophical developments in history and began an unparalleled national experiment: Now, therefore, be it 
3 

•HCON 386 EH 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That the Congress recognizes and celebrates 

3 the 232d anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of 

4 Independence. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 24 

(legislative day September 23), 2008. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 386 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. 

Recognizing and celebrating the 232nd anniversary
Before the Second Division,

March 20, 1943

No. 48113.

#### Protest 783866-G of Amerlux Steel Corp. (Portland, *Oreg.)*

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Wilbuf-Ellis*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 403, C. A. D. 47) and (9 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 673) the claim for free entry under paragraph 1604 was sustained.
Exhibit 31.2



Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, John M. Presley, certify that:



(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National Commerce Financial Corporation;



(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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



(4) The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



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



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our 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



c) Disclosed in the report any change in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



(6) The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                     |  |  |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: August 9, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ JOHN M. PRESLEY    
|                     |  |  |  | John M. Presley        
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
1 

### B E C K H A M

, L I SA

Fr o m: M i c h ae l F

. G o ld m a n < g o ld m a n m @s b ca p c d. o rg>
S e nt: Mo nd ay
, A p ril 06

, 2015 11 : 08 AM

T o: B E C KH AM

, LISA

S u b j ec t: R E: Int e r p r e t a ti o n o f P S D R ul e

- R ul e 810

Att a chme nt s: r em ov e d.txt

L isa,

Ye s, t h e S a n t a Bar b ara C o u n ty A P C D c o n fi r m s o u r i n te r p r et a t i o n t h a t t h e v e rs i o n o f 4 0 C F R 5 2

. 2 1 i n c o r p o r a t e d b y

r e f e r e n c e i n t o R u l e 8 1 0 d i d n o t i n cl ud e t h e P M2

. 5 SI L s a nd S M C b e ca u s e t h o s e p r ov is i o n s we r e n o l o ng e r i n e ff e c t o n
Jun e 20

, 2 0 1 3

.

S i n c e r e l y ,



## M i k e

M i c hae l G o l d m an , Mana g e r

E ng i n ee ri ng D i v isi o n
S a n t a Bar b ara C o un t y A P C D ( 8 0 5 ) 9 6 1

- 8 8 2 1

w w w

. s b c a p c d

. o rg

t w i tt e r.c o m /O u rAi r SBC

T h e li n k e d ima g e c a nno t b e d i s p la y e d . T h e file ma y h a v e b ee n m o v e d

, r e n ame d

, o r d elete d . V e r if y t h at t h e li n k po i n ts t

o t h e c o rr e c t file a nd l o c ati on.

F r o m: BECK H A M

, L ISA [ m a i l t o : BECK H A M

. L ISA@ E P A. G OV ]

S en t: T hu rs d a y , Ap ril 2

, 20 15 4 : 4 0 PM

T o: M ic h a e l F. G o l d m a n Sub j e c t: In te r p r e t a t i o n o f P S D R u l e

- R u l e 8 10

H i M ik e I a m i n t h e p r o c e s s o f c o ndu c t i ng o u r fi n al r e v i ew o f S a n t a Bar b ara’s P S D r u l e a n d w a n te d t o m a k e s u r e we ar e i n

a g r e e m e n t o n t h e i n te r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e “ i n e f f e c t ” d a t e o f y o u r P S D r u l e

- R u l e 81 0

.

S e c t i o n 3 o f R u l e 8 1 0 a d o p t s t h e p r o v isi o n s i n 4 0 C F R 52

. 2 1 “ i n e f f e c t Jun e 2 0

, 2 0 13

. ” O n J a nu ar y 22

, 2 0 1 3

, t h e U .S.

C o u r t o f App e al s f o r t h e D i s t ric t o f C o l u m b ia ( C o u r t ) i s s u e d a d e cis i o n t o v ac a te t h e P M2

. 5 SI L s a nd P M2

. 5 S M C i n S ie r r a Cl ub v

. E PA

, 7 05 F

. 3 d 4 58

. Sub s e qu e n t l y , o n M arc h 1 9

, 2 01 3

, t h e C o u r t iss u e d i t s m a nd a t e v a c a t i ng t h e P M 2

. 5 SI L s a nd

S M C

. E P A i n te r p r et s t h a t o n c e t h e C o u r t iss u e d i t s m a nd a te

, t h e P M2

. 5 SI L s a nd S M C p r o v is i o n s a t 5 2

. 2 1 w e r e n o l o n g e r
i n e ff e c t

.

Ca n y o u c o n fi r m w h et h e r y o u a g r e e w i t h t h is i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ? T h a t is, d o y o u a g r e e t h a t t h e v e rs i o n o f 40 C F R 5 2

. 2 1

i n c o r p o r a te d b y r e f e r e n c e i n t o R u l e 8 1 0 d i d n o t i n cl ud e t h e P M2

. 5 SI L s a nd S M C b e ca u s e t h o s e p r o v is i o n s w e r e n o l o ng e r i n e f

f e c t o n Jun e 2 0

, 2 0 1 3?

I w ill f o l l o w up w i t h a ph o n e call t o y o u.2 T h a n ks,

L isa B e ck h a m
E n v ir o n m e n t al E ng i n ee r
A ir P e r m i t s Offi c e
E P A R e g i o n 9 ( 4 1 5 ) 9 7 2

- 3 8 1 1
Exhibit 32.2


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                                (18 U.S.C. 1350)


     In connection with Amendment 1 to the Report of Competitive Technologies,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended October 31, 2010,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Johnnie D. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), 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.


                                   /s/ Johnnie D. Johnson
                                   ----------------------
                                   Johnnie D. Johnson
                                   Chief Financial Officer

                                   March 3, 2011























                                    Page 25