alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Boiling point determination of NCS:

The PMN NCS is a52% (w/w)solution of the NCS in sodium hydroxide solution. While the NCS is

stable at alkaline pH (>10) the NCS is very labile to acid hydrolysis and can not be isolated as a pure

chemical substance at essentially neutral pH.

Standard boiling point determination was done using the classic method of boiling point

determination. A 25 mltest tube was filled with the 22 ml of the NCS. An closed class tube was inverted

(closed side up) and secured with a rubber band to a precision thermometer (gradation 0.1"C). The

thermometer glass tube was then placed into the NCS liquid such that aboutTS% of the glass tube was

covered by the NCS. The entire apparatus was lowered into a glycerol heating bath such that the level

of the glycerol was higher than that of the NCS contained in the test tube. Heat was applied to the

glycerol heating bath. When a steady stream of bubbles was observed from the glass tube, heat was

removed. The temperature at which the NCS was sucked into the closed tube was found to be LLL.Z"C.

The measured boiling point of the NCS is LLL.Z"C
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-20641 Conference Calendar

JOHN THOMAS BAGLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-96-CV-1985

- - - - - - - - - - February 10, 1998 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Texas prisoner John Thomas Bagley, No. 652853, is BARRED from proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) because, on at least three prior occasions while incarcerated, Bagley has brought an action or appeal in a United States court that was dismissed as frivolous.
See Bagley v. Johnson , No. 97-20667 (5th Cir. Dec. 9, 1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, Bagley’s IFP status is DECERTIFIED, andNo. 97-20641 -2-

he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is in prison unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The appeal is DISMISSED. Bagley has 15 days from the date of this opinion to pay the full appellate filing fee of $105 to the clerk of the district court, should he wish to reinstate his appeal.
IFP DECERTIFIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### Eleanor T. LYNCH, Petitioner, v. FRISCH’S BIG BOY OF ST. PETERSBURG et al., Respondents.

No. 39815.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 15, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### Jeanne M. SAUNDERS, Appellant, v. Guy E. SAUNDERS, Jr., Appellee.

No. 74-48.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 11, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Lewis Kapner, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3905]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service
[Dept. Circ. 570, 1996 Rev., Supp. No. 6]


Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds; Consolidated 
Insurance Co.

    A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal Bonds 
is hereby issued to the following company under sections 9304 to 9308, 
Title 31, of the United States Code. Federal bond-approving officers 
should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570, 
1996 Revision, on page 34288 to reflect this addition:

    Consolidated Insurance Company. Business Address: 62 Maple 
Avenue, Keene, NH 03431. Phone: (603) 352-3221. Underwriting 
Limitation b/: $1,960.000. Surety Licenses c/: FL, IL, IN, IA, KY, 
MI, OH, TN, WA, WI. Incorporated IN: Indiana.

    Certificates of Authority expire on June 30 each year, unless 
revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent 
annual renewal as long as the companies remain qualified (31 CFR, part 
223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of July 1 
in Treasury Department Circular 570, with details as to underwriting 
limitations, areas in which licensed to transact surety business and 
other information.
    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet 
(http://www.fmd.treas.gov/c570.html) or through our computerized public 
bulletin board system (FMS Inside Line) at (202) 8734-6887. A hard copy 
may be purchased from the Government Printing Office (GPO), 
Subscription Service Washington, DC, telephone (202) 512-1800. When 
ordering the Circular from GPO, use the following stock number: 048-
000-00499-7.
    Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Funds 
Management Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 
6F04, Hyattsville, MD 20782, telephone (202) 874-6905.

    Dated: February 4, 1997.
Charles F. Schwan III,
Director, Funds Management Division, Financial Management Service.
[FR Doc. 97-3905 Filed 2-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
Exhibit 99.1

                         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 Ocean Express Lines, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), H.
Deworth Williams, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the
best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sec. 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; and

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


/s/   H. DEWORTH WILLIAMS

H. Deworth Williams
Chief Executive Officer
April 8, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6729

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DESMOND FARMER, a/k/a Slick,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00144-D-1)

Submitted: October 23, 2018 Decided: October 26, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Desmond Farmer, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Desmond Farmer appeals the district court’s order denying Farmer’s 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the U.S. 

Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2014). Based on our review of the record, we conclude 

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion based on the 

serious risk Farmer poses to public safety. See United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 

195 (4th Cir. 2013) (“Whether to reduce a sentence and to what extent is a matter within 

the district court’s discretion.”). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. See United States v. Farmer, No. 5:13-cr-00144-D-1 (E.D.N.C. filed 

June 11, 2018 & entered June 12, 2018). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. John J. SWEET, Respondent.

No. 39817.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 31, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 24, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 235 So.2d 40.

ROBERTS, THORNAL, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, C. J., dissents.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Mary Strickland MILLER.

No. 61153.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 11, 1978.

In re: State of Louisiana applying for writ of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition. Parish of Caddo.

Denied.
February 28 , 2012

Via e

- mail: celia.sher@hq.doe.gov

Ms. Celia Sher

Attorney Advisor

Office of the General Counsel

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Ave., S.W.

Wash ington, DC 20585

Subject: Memorandum of meeting between DOE and CEA on functional adder

issues relating to energy standards and consumer electronics

Dear Ms. Sher:

This correspondence is to inform the Department of Energ y for the record that the Consumer

Electronics Association (CEA) met with DOE staff on February 22, 2012

, regarding “ functional

adder ” issues relating to energy standards and consumer electronics.

Attending the February 22 nd meeting for CEA were Douglas Johnson (CEA), Chuck Samuel s (outside

counsel for CEA), Ho lly Evans (consultant for Bose), and Steve Whitaker (consultant for Bose).

Participating in this meeting with CEA by telephone were the following : David Cassano (Appl e),

Timothy Cassidy (Best Buy), and Cecilia Martaus (AT&T).

As explained during the meeting, the term “ functional adder ” is essentially a wattage budget allocated

to a particular product functio n or set of function s in the context of an energy efficiency program

requirement

, such as an ENERGY STAR specification

.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the legal and policy aspect s of recognizing the additional

merging and evolving functions of products such as those, for example, which nominally might be

described a s set

- top boxes or battery chargers. Use of product classes, test procedure allowances

, and

other regulatory and non

- regulatory approaches were discussed.

Sin cerely,

/s/

Douglas K. Johnson

Vice President, Technology Policy
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7219 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7219

  To amend the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act to 
 permit absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters to submit 
the Federal write-in absentee ballot under such Act to the appropriate 
       State election official by mail, electronic mail, or fax.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 2020

 Mr. Lynch (for himself, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Cooper, and Mr. DeSaulnier) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act to 
 permit absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters to submit 
the Federal write-in absentee ballot under such Act to the appropriate 
       State election official by mail, electronic mail, or fax.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Digital Overseas Voting Act''.

SEC. 2. PERMITTING SUBMISSION OF FEDERAL WRITE-IN ABSENTEE BALLOT BY 
              MAIL, ELECTRONIC MAIL, OR FAX.

    (a) Submission of Ballot.--Section 103(b) of the Uniformed and 
Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (52 U.S.C. 20303(b)) is amended 
in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking the period at the end 
of the first sentence and inserting the following: ``, except that the 
appropriate State election official shall accept the submission of the 
ballot by the absent uniformed services voter or overseas voter by 
mail, electronic mail, or fax.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to any ballot submitted on or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### BAYSHORE BOAT CITY, INC., Appellant, v. COCONUT GROVE MARINA, INC., Appellee.

Nos. 69-732, 69-722.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 30, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 5, 1970.

Pozen, Gold & Gold, Miami, for appellant.

Alan Rothstein, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

*279PER CURIAM.

The appellant was the tenant of the ap-pellee. This appeal is from a final judgment entered after a non-jury trial can-celling the lease because of alleged violations of that agreement. The points presented argue that the evidence was insufficient because the violations were of unimportant provisions which would not support the harsh remedy or were violations which were waived by the acceptance of rent. A review of the record convinces us that appellant’s arguments are in every case based upon conflicting evidence and that the appellant has not shown either an absence of evidence to support the judgment or that the trial judge misconceived the legal effect of the evidence. E. g., Stephenson v. National Bank, 92 Fla. 347, 109 So. 424 (1926).

Affirmed.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2011 - 1325 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2010 -NM - 250 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
VLO Exh 10.06 - 12.31.2013




Exhibit 10.06


2014 ELECTIVE DEFERRAL AGREEMENT
Valero Energy Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan


Pursuant to the Valero Energy Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”):


 ̈    I elect not to participate in the Plan during 2014.


		
	 ̈
	I hereby elect to defer a portion of my compensation for the period commencing January 1, 2014 and ending December 31, 2014 (the “Plan Year”) as follows:




Salary (elect either 1 or 2)


1.    ________% (in even 1% increments not to exceed 30%) of the regular salary to which I may become entitled during the Plan Year;


2.    $_________ per pay period of the regular salary to which I may become entitled with respect to (check either (a) or (b) below):


(a)    ________ all pay periods during the Plan Year
(b)    ________ the following pay periods (specify):


____________________________________________
____________________________________________


Bonus (elect either 3 or 4 for bonus earned in 2014 and possibly payable in 2015)


3.    ________% (in even 1% increments not to exceed 50%) of any cash bonuses to which I may become entitled;


4.    $_________ of any cash bonuses to which I may become entitled.


NOTE:  In order to be effective, this form must be completed, signed, and returned to Financial Benefits (San Antonio/Mailstation E1L or fax 210/345-3063) on or before December 2, 2013.  If your form is not timely submitted, you will not be eligible to participate in the Plan for the 2014 Plan Year.


The Company has taken measures to design the Plan in a manner that conforms to current tax law.  However, it is possible that new legislation could affect your deferral elections.  Your 2014 Plan Year deferral elections are irrevocable and are governed by the terms and conditions of the Plan as well as any modifications made to the Plan in order to conform to legal requirements.


ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:


I hereby authorize the above amounts to be deducted and deferred through payroll deduction/reduction by the Company.


	
			
	Participant's Signature
	 
	Date

	 
	 
	 

	Participant's Name
	 
	Participant's Employee ID Number
#### Dorothy F. MATHEWS v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 8070.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

April 13, 1970.

J. Stuart Douglass, New Orleans, for appellant.

William A. Norfolk, Baton Rouge, for appellee.

Before LANDRY, SARTAIN and ELLIS, JJ.

ELLIS, Judge.

An examination of the record in this case revealed that the bond was apparently filed late. We issued an order to the parties to show cause, by briefs, why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.

Briefs have now been filed, and it is conceded that the bond was, in fact, filed too late. Appellant points out that all costs and the filing fee required by this court were timely paid, and that, since the appeal bond is intended to secure the payment of such costs, no one has been prejudiced by the late filing of the bond.

The argument is without merit. Under the express provision of Article 2088 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the jurisdiction of this court does not attach until the appeal bond is timely filed.

We are without jurisdiction, and the appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
**Exhibit 32.1**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONI, E. Randall Chestnut, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of CrownCrafts, Inc. (the “Company”), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ending July 3, 2005 (the“Periodic Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: August 16, 2005     /s/ E. Randall Chestnut     E. Randall Chestnut, Chairman of the Board,
ORIGINAL
 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUGES 

In the Matter of 

) 

) 

POL YPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

) 

) Docket No. 9327 

Respondent. ) 

) 

ORDER ON NON-PARTY ERIC HEGLIE'S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM
 

On May 26,2009, non-part Eric Heglie ("Heglie") submitted a motion to quash the 

subpoena ad testifcandum served on him by Respondent. Heglie asserts that he previously 

provided testimony at an investigational hearng and at a deposition at which all paries were 

represented. He further asserts that requiring his appearance would be unduly burdensome and 

his testimony at trial would be needlessly cumulative. 

Trial in this matter is currently proceeding. On May 27, 2009, in open court, the paries 

agreed to allow Heglie to appear through his previous testimony and Respondent agreed to 

withdraw this subpoena. 

Accordingly, Heglie's motion to quash is DENIED AS MOOT. 

ORDERED: j' f'V (A¡-lf"! 

D. Michael Cha pell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: May 27, 2009
Exhibit 32





Certifications





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 of American General Finance, Inc. as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of, Frederick W. Geissinger, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Donald R. Breivogel, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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/                                               | Frederick W. Geissinger  | 
|----- | ------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------ | 
|      |                                                   | Frederick W. Geissinger  | 
|      | President and Chief Executive Officer             |                         
|      | /s/                                               | Donald R. Breivogel, Jr. | 
|      |                                                   | Donald R. Breivogel, Jr. | 
|      | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer |                         
|Date: | August 8, 2007                                    |                          | 





42
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3486]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, February 26, 1997.
PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 9th Fl. Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Enforcement Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-3486 Filed 2-7-97; 11:58 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 26, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00544

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.V.T., A CHILD,

From the 293rd Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas

Trial Court No. 141130350MCV

Honorable Maribel Flores, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The Appellant’s Unopposed Second Motion to Extend Time to File Brief is hereby

GRANTED. Time is extended to December 27, 20 19.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

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

court on this 26th day of November, 2019

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
#### Kenneth Ray STRICKLAND, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1130.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 17, 1973.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and John Lipinski, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Franklin v. State, Fla. 1971, 257 So.2d 21.