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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1661 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1661

   To specify that States may waive certain requirements relating to 
   commercial motor vehicle operators under chapter 313 of title 49, 
   United States Code, with respect to the operators of certain farm 
                   vehicles, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 29, 1996

Mr. Pressler (for himself, Mr. Burns, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. 
    Baucus) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To specify that States may waive certain requirements relating to 
   commercial motor vehicle operators under chapter 313 of title 49, 
   United States Code, with respect to the operators of certain farm 
                   vehicles, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. WAIVERS FOR CERTAIN FARM VEHICLES.

    (a) Definitions.--As used in this section:
            (1) Custom harvesting farm machinery.--The term ``custom 
        harvesting farm machinery'' includes vehicles used for custom 
        harvesting that--
                    (A) are classified under subpart F of part 383, of 
                title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as being 
                included in Group A, B, or C (as those terms are used 
                in section 383.91 of that part); and
                    (B) are used on a seasonal basis to provide 
                transportation of--
                            (i) agricultural commodities from field to 
                        storage; and
                            (ii) harvesting machinery and equipment 
                        from farm to farm.
            (2) Commercial driver's license.--The term ``commercial 
        driver's license'' has the meaning provided that term in 
        section 31301(3) of title 49, United States Code.
    (b) Waivers.--In addition to the authority granted to States to 
waive the application of chapter 313 of title 49, United States Code, 
with respect to farm vehicles described in 53 Fed. Reg. 37313-37316 and 
farm-related service industries described in 57 Fed. Reg. 13650-13654, 
each State that issues commercial driver's licenses in accordance with 
chapter 313 of title 49, United States Code, may waive the application 
of any requirement for obtaining a commercial driver's license for 
operators of custom harvesting farm machinery or employees of farm-
related service industries (or both) that would otherwise apply.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



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
      /s/ Craig T. DavenportCraig T. DavenportPresident, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Petition for Writ of Mandamus is Denied; Opinion Filed April 8, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-00386-CV

IN RE JASON LOUIS MCDERMOTT, Relator

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-06883-G

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices O'Neill, Lang-Miers, and Evans 

Opinion by Justice Evans

Relator contends the trial judge erred in ordering in camera production of a tax 

return. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. 

Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not shown he is entitled to the relief 

requested. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) 

(orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

130386F.P05

/David W. Evans/

DAVID W. EVANS

JUSTICE
ex99_1.htm


 







Exhibit 99.1


 


 





 



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                                             


February 6, 2012


 


Intelimax Receives CNSX Listing Approval and Listing Date


 


Vancouver, BC, Canada, 6th February 2012 – Intelimax Media Inc. (“Intelimax“ or the “Company”) (OTCQB:IXMD) is pleased to announce that it’s common shares will be listed on the Canadian National Stock Exchange (CNSX) under the symbol “IMD” effective February 7, 2012.


 


Glenn Little, President and CEO said; “We are very excited to be listed on the CNSX as we believe that it will gain Intelimax exposure to the Canadian brokerage community, private investors and their ability to invest through RRSP’s and TFSA’s in Canada.”


 


About Intelimax Media Inc.


 


Intelimax Media Inc. (www.intelimax.com) is an Internet media services company focusing on online games, social media networking and web content.  Using its’ proprietary Social Media Platform, Intelimax offers subscription based gaming on its website, (http://www.gamboozle.com).


 







Investor Relations:


 


Phone: 1-866-742-0121   Email: IR@Intelimax.com


 







For and on behalf of the board of Intelimax Media Inc.,


 


Glenn Little, President & CEO


 







Forward Looking Statements:


 


Except for historical information contained herein, the matters set forth above may be forward-looking statements that involve certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ from those in the forward-looking statements. Words such as "anticipate," "believe," "estimate," "expect," "intend" and similar expressions, as they relate to Intelimax or its management, identify forward-looking statements, and include, without limitation, statements relating to the ability of Intelimax to increase its exposure to the Canadian brokerage community, private investors and their ability to invest through RRSP’s and TFSA’s in Canada. Such forward-looking statements are based on the current beliefs of management, as well as assumptions made by and information currently available to management. Actual results could differ materially from those contemplated by the forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors such as the level of business and consumer spending, the amount of sales of Intelimax’s products, the competitive environment within the industry, the ability of Intelimax to continue to expand its operations, the level of costs incurred in connection with Intelimax's expansion efforts, economic conditions in the industry and the financial strength of Intelimax's customers and suppliers. Intelimax does not undertake any obligation to update such forward-looking statements. Investors are also directed to consider all other risks and uncertainties.


 












Neither the CNSX Exchange nor its regulations services accepts responsibility


for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.


 


 


 



Intelimax Media Inc  Limited Harbour Centre ■ PO Box 12022 ■ #2320 - 555 West Hastings St. ■ 


Vancouver, B.C. ■ V6B 4N4 Phone: 604.742.1111 ■ Fax: 604.909.5169


www.intelimax.com
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
              TELEPORT COMMUNICATIONS GROUP INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
                     COMPUTATIONS OF LOSS PER COMMON SHARE
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE AMOUNTS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                          -----------------------------------------------------------------
                              1997          1996         1995         1994         1993
                          ------------  ------------  -----------  -----------  -----------
<S>                       <C>           <C>           <C>          <C>          <C>
Net loss................  $   (222,667) $   (114,850) $   (53,804) $   (29,989) $   (18,271)
                          ============  ============  ===========  ===========  ===========
Primary loss per common
 share:
Weighted average number
 of shares outstanding..   165,728,059   114,443,695   70,000,140   70,000,140   70,000,140
                          ============  ============  ===========  ===========  ===========
Loss per Share..........  $      (1.34) $      (1.00) $     (0.77) $     (0.43) $     (0.26)
                          ============  ============  ===========  ===========  ===========
</TABLE>
The Association The Products Member Directory Certification + Testing Publications + Resources Contact Us

User Name

Password

> I forgot my password > Become a member Home | About CPA | Bookstore | EPP Programs | Member Quick Links | Join CPA | Contact Us | CA R

Return to The Products 

### Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) is widely use d manufacturing of furniture, kitchen cabinets, do o mouldings, millwork and laminate flooring. MDF p a manufactured with a variety of physical prope r dimensions, providing the opportunity to design product with the specific MDF needed. MDF is a composite panel product typically con s cellulosic fibers combined with a synthetic resin suitable bonding system and joined together under pressure. Additives may be introduced manufacturing to impart additional characteristics. The surface of MDF is flat, smooth, uniform, dense and free of knots a patterns. The homogeneous density profile of MDF allows intricate an d machining and finishing techniques for superior finished products. Trim significantly reduced when using MDF compared to other substrates. Sta b strength are important assets of MDF, which can be machined into complex that require precise tolerances.

Common Uses Doors, Jambs & Millwork Edge Shaping & Machining Embossing Laminate Flooring Laminating & Finishing Moulding Office & Residential Furniture Paneling Store Fixtures

Product Standards and Certification
The American National Standard for Medium Density Fiberboard (ANSI A208.2) is the North American industry voluntary standard. It classifies MDF by physical and mechanical properties and identifies product grades. Specifications identified in the Standard include physical and mechanical properties, dimensional tolerances and formaldehyde emission limits. The Standard was developed through the sponsorship of the Composite Panel Association (CPA), in conjunction with producers, users and general interest groups. A summary of the ANSI Property Requirements are included in this Guide, and copies of the Standard are available from CPA. Products - MDF http://www.pbmdf.com/index.asp?bid=1077

1 of 1 11/30/2010 2:01 P M
*********************************************** 

The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was 

released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions 

and petitions for certification is the “officially released” 

date appearing in the opinion. 

All opinions are subject to modification and technical 

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut 

Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of 

discrepancies between the advance release version of an 

opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 

Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports 

or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to 

be considered authoritative. 

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the 

opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and 

bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the 

Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not 

be reproduced and distributed without the express written 

permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. 

*********************************************** 
BORELLI v. RENALDI—SECOND CONCURRENCE

D’AURIA, J., concurring. Although I join the majority

opinion in full, I agree in part with observations Justice

Ecker makes in part III of his dissenting opinion concerning the identifiable victim-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity. Specifically, I am

skeptical that the doctrinal validity of this exception

can be based on whether a plaintiff ‘‘was compelled to

be at the location where the injury occurred . . . .’’

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Strycharz v. Cady,

323 Conn. 548, 576, 148 A.3d 1011 (2016), overruled in

part on other grounds by Ventura v. East Haven, 330

Conn. 613, 199 A.3d 1 (2019). The appropriate doctrinal

underpinnings and limits of this exception would be

useful to explore in a future case. I am satisfied, however, that the exception does not save the plaintiff’s

cause of action from defeat in this case.
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 Quarterly Report of LitFunding Corp., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), David Cohen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the
best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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.

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


/s/ David Cohen
--------------------------
David Cohen
Chief Financial Officer

Date: September 15, 2004
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1691

To provide for a minimum presence of INS agents in each State.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 22, 1996

Mr. HARKIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide for a minimum presence of INS agents in each

State.

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 ‘‘Immigration Control

5 Enforcement Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. MINIMUM STATE INS PRESENCE.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 103 (8 U.S.C. 1103) is

8 amended by adding at the end the following new

9 subsection.

10 ‘‘(e) The Attorney General shall ensure that no State

11 is allocated fewer than 10 full-time active duty agents of
2

•S 1691 IS

1 the Immigration and Naturalization Service to carry out

2 the enforcement, examinations, and inspections functions

3 of the Service for the purposes of effective enforcement

4 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.’’.

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This Act shall take effect 90

6 days after the date of its enactment.

Æ
8_AEP (Avenal): USFWS Reference Proj #: 81420-2008-F-1338-2

Shirley Rivera to: Shelley_Buranek 10/22/2009 05:50 PM

Cc: Julie Walters, Tracey Gilliland, Gerardo Rios, Kerry Drake

(also in reference to: EPA's proposed PSD Permit No. SJ 08-01 - Avenal Power Center, LLC's proposed 

Avenal Energy Project)

Shelley,

Please see the attached summary memo which presents our comments on the USFWS's Draft Biological 

Opinion. 

We look forward to your efforts to prepare and complete the Final Biological Opinion. Also, we will be 

available to clarify any of our comments, suggested and requested revisions, and possible comments that 

may require further discussion. 

OVERVIEW. The table presents a summary of comments on the USFWS’s DRAFT Biological Opinion for 

the Avenal Energy Project, including comments provided to USEPA by the project applicant that USEPA 

is forwarding to USFWS (which are designated accordingly). Referenced material includes:

l USFWS letter transmittal (from USFWS Susan Moore to USEPA Gerardo Rios) dated July 1, 

2009, “Draft Biological Opinion on the Proposed Avenal Power Center, LLC Avenal Energy Power 

Plant Project”

l June 2009 California Energy Commission (CEC) Final Staff Assessment (FSA) – specifically the 

section which addresses Biological Resources (pages 4.2-1 through 4.2-35) 

The column headers in the attached table represent the following:

l Item: Notation for ease of reference.

l Page(s): Page number of the USFWS letter transmittal 

l Section/Description: Section title and/or description of comment

l Comment: Comment and context, where applicable

l Requested Action / Consideration: Based on comment, requested action for proposed 

revision and/or consideration by USFWS to develop the final Biological Opinion

I'll touch base with you shortly.

Best regards,

- Shirley

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

Shirley F. Rivera 

T: (415) 972-3966 | F: (415) 947-3579 | Rivera.Shirley@epa.gov | Cube #17114

U.S. EPA, Region 9, Air Permits Office (AIR-3) | 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 30, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41291

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARRICK HILLARD, also known as Pie,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:01-CR-33-1 

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

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arrick Hillard appeals his guilty-plea conviction for

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. Hillard 

argues that the magistrate judge committed reversible error at

the rearraignment proceedings by failing to 1) inform him that he

had the right to plead not guilty or to persist in his not-guilty

plea, 2) advise him of the effects of supervised release, and

3) fully explain the nature of the conspiracy charge. Hillard
No. 02-41291

-2-

also contends that the magistrate judge erred in delegating and

permitting the Government to conduct certain FED. R. CRIM. P. 11

admonishments, and he asserts that there was an insufficient

factual basis for his plea. Hillard argues that the magistrate 

judge’s flawed compliance with the requirements of FED. R. CRIM.

P. 11 renders his guilty plea involuntarily made. Hillard

further asserts that his case should be remanded to the district

court for disposition of his outstanding pro se motion to

withdraw his guilty plea, which Hillard filed subsequent to his

rearraignment and prior to his sentencing.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the

parties and hold that the magistrate judge’s alleged FED. R. CRIM.

P. 11 errors/omissions do not rise to the level of plain error. 

See United States v. Vonn, 122 S. Ct. 1043, 1046 (2002); United

States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 558 (5th Cir. 2002); United States

v. Marek, 238 F.3d 310, 315 (5th Cir.)(en banc), cert. denied,

534 U.S. 813 (2001); United States v. Cuevas-Andrade, 232 F.3d

440, 444 (5th Cir. 2000).

Because Hillard was represented by counsel during the

criminal proceedings, his pro se letter to withdraw his guilty

plea was an unauthorized motion that the district court was

permitted to ignore. See United States v. Ogbonna, 184 F.3d 447,

449 & n.1 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140,

142 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Please see the attached file in response to the request for additional information.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
### 2017-01-27 14:53 ARCALROLEG02 9072712800 » 

### 2022671293 p 

### 1/5 FEDERAL AVIATlON ADMINISTRATION Alaskan Region Office ofthe Regional Counsel 222 West Seventh Avenue, Box 14 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 PH: (907) 271-5269 FAX: (907) 271-2800 

## FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET TO: Hearing Docket Clerk FROM: Glenn H. Brown, Esq. FAX No: 202-267-1293 RE: Tyler

### .J. Harder Docl,ct No. FAA-2016-9213 Numbet• ofpnges (not including this cover sheet): - 4 - Withdrnwal ofComplaint (original and one)

Thv lttlbrrtlnliUtt **t:!ltll~lltl'd** _lit

**till~ lit~.'ltni~•'**  **lll~j>H~l'** i.1 **]!dvilu~ed** 1111d protected under Ihe illw. h [ij ilttond.od lhr tl•c

**II~~** ot'_th<.' lndiVI<IHnl "' '-'llli1Y t\11111011
**~1>\>y;;,** It'

**Ill_~** l\ 1ndt•r <!I'

**thi~ 111<:~'111lC**  i• n<H !he **int~ruk'<l** recipient, I"

**tit~ cmph1y~-.:**  m
**~gent** rC!JlOimble l<>
**ddt~or** tl lfl tlh' **inl~nlkd T~'<lhli~!l!,**  )II'" m<J
**lt~rVby** nuhlic<l LIHtl Hny **di~~CIItintt!lnn,** lh<Lrilmll<Jn, "' cnpying nl' tins **comllHmi~~IIUil** i• 11r1dly ]lri)hi\>11cil 11' Y•W

**l>~ve** r«dvcd LliiN li1 _, in "'"'''' pic;";"
**1111mcdi~Lcly** until)' tile
**:~<:udc1·** by tclcpllwnc, rmd T'-'1<Jnl Lhc llfiiJIIInl
**me~,:;oyc** I<I liS •111hi' ot\>(W\'
**n<ldr.l~N** vin 1110:1.1 :>. l'i•»lnl
**~c~i<u**

### 2017-01-27 14:54 In the matter of: Tyler J. Barder 

### ARCALROLEG02 9072712800 » U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

### 2022671293 p 

### 2/5 ) ) ) ) FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-9213 Case No. 2016NM730012 JUDGE DOUGLAS M. RAWALD WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, Complainthereby withdraws its complaint in this matter with theunderstanding that the matter will be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted this 27th day ofJanuary 2017. Naomi Tsuda Assistant ChiefCounsel

for Enforcement



# By:~~ Gl11llH:Brown Enforcement Division, Western Team 222 W. 7th Avenue #14 Anchorage, AK 99513 email: glenn.brown@faa.gov telephone: (907) 271-5271 (direct) (907) 271-2800 (fax)

### 2017-01-27 14:54 ARCALROLEG02 9072712800 » CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Re: Tyler J. Harder DocketNo. FAA-2016-9213 FAA CaseNo. 2016NM730012 

### 2022671293 p 

### 3/5 Ihereby certifythat on this date Ihave served a copy ofthe Withdrawal ofthe Complaintby postage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, to each ofthe following: The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald U.S. Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20; U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJerseyAvenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TylerHarder 19722 S. MitkofLoop Eagle River, AK 99577 I further certifythat on this date Ihave served the original and one copy ofthe Withdrawal ofthe Complaint bypostage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, and facsimile, addressed as follows: Hearing Docket Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20591 ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building, Room 2Wl000 FAX: 202-267-1093 Patricia L. Baysinger Management and Program Anal EnforcementDivision Western Team 222 W. 7u' Avenue #14 Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 (907) 271-5264