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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 493 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 86
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 493

                          [Report No. 104-64]

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
                documentation for the vessel CONSORTIUM.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

              March 2 (legislative day, February 22), 1995

  Mr. Chafee introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

                             April 18, 1995

    Reported, under authority of the order of the Senate of April 6 
  (legislative day, April 5), 1995, by Mr. Pressler, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
                documentation for the vessel CONSORTIUM.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

    Notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, 
United States Code, and section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 
App. U.S.C. 883), as applicable on the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
documentation for the vessel CONSORTIUM, United States official number 
1029192.
                                     

                                                        Calendar No. 86

104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 493

                          [Report No. 104-64]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
                documentation for the vessel CONSORTIUM.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 18, 1995

                      Reported without amendment
```
Order entered November 7 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 01048
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF G . S., A CHILD On Appeal from the 439th Judicial District Court

Rockw all County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1
- 18
- 0347



### O RDER By order dated October 23, 2019, we informed appellant the time for filing her brief had expired and ordered appellant to file her brief and an extension motion within ten days. We cautioned appell ant that failure to do so might result in an order for the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed and to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, including appointment of new counsel. To date, appellant has not filed her brief, filed an extension motion, or otherwise corresponded with the
Court concerning her brief. Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been fi led. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. The trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may benecessary to assure effective repre sentation, which may include the appointment of new counsel.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceeding s, which shall include written findings and recommendations, to this Court within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated fifteen days from the d ate of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
#### Orlan BINGHAM, Petitioner, v. Hon. B. Robert STIVERS, Judge, Laurel Circuit Court, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 26, 1965.

*801Orlan Bingham, pro se.

B. Robert Stivers, pro se.

DAVIS, Commissioner.

Orlan Bingham invokes the original jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Section 110, Kentucky Constitution. He asserts that the respondent circuit judge has denied him a record of proceedings had pursuant to the petitioner’s motion to vacate judgment (RCr 11.42). According to the petition, Bingham has requested a transcript of the record on the motion to vacate for purposes of an appeal to this Court. Petitioner claimed to be a pauper and thus entitled to have the record furnished to him without payment by him of the customary clerk’s fees. This Court has sustained petitioner’s motion to proceed here as a pauper.

In a response filed by the trial judge there is no denial that Bingham is a pauper. Under such circumstances the trial court has no recourse except to provide a record for use on appeal. The judge’s response here states that Bingham had a fair trial and that there was no merit whatever in Bingham’s motion to vacate under RCr 11.42. This may be correct, but we are not able to so adjudicate without the RCr 11.42 record before us. Wilson v. Jefferson Circuit Court, Ky., 384 S.W.2d 305.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the respondent cause to be furnished to the petitioner a transcript of the proceedings on the petitioner’s motion to vacate so that an appeal may be prosecuted to this Court by petitioner if he so desires.
#### Robert L. SMITH et ux., Petitioners, v. PULLIAM, INC., Respondent.

No. A-10773.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Oct. 13, 1965.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 10, 1965.

*792H. J. Loe, Fort Worth, for petitioners.

Leo Ferris, Fort Worth, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in this case is reported in 388 S.W.2d 329 (1965).

After reviewing the entire record in the light of the pleadings, the evidence, and the status of the points preserved for appeal, we are of the opinion that a correct result has been reached by the courts below, and that writ of error should not have been granted in this case. Accordingly, the order granting the writ of error is set aside; and the application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error. This action is not to be construed as approving in toto the discussion of the Court of Civil Appeals on the right to recover in quantum meruit.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
reports included in this Form 10-K into the Company's previous filed
Registration Statements File Nos. 33-45015, 33-42561, 33-23294, 33-16585,
33-6604, 33-959, 2-91008, 33-40623, 33-46874, 33-46875, 33-50628, 33-57519,
33-63637, 333-7279, 33-62257, 333-34346 and 333-34368.


                                                           ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Stamford, Connecticut
April 26, 2000
### SERVED: FEBRUARY4, 2014 

## U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

InThe Matter Of: AVIATION ENGINEERING CONSULT ANTS, INC. Respondent 

## OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC t:l!i ,, - Ci Ci: t,_

# s ) ) ) ) 

### ) ) DocketNo. FAA-2013;,0284
Case No. 2012CE440003

ORDERDISMISSING PROCEEDING OnJanuary 14,2014, an Order Granting Unopposed Motionto Continue was filed. This Ordercontinued the Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference until February 12, 2014, at 11:00 a.m. Easterntime and setFebruary 5, 2014, as the deadline for filing a Rule 26(±) Joint Scheduling/Discovery Plan.
_ OnFebruary 3, 2014, the FAA filed Complainant'sNotice ofWithdrawal ofAmended Complaint stating that the matter has beenresolved through the timely payment ofanagreed civil penalty. After having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.218, the Respondent's December 20, 2013 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and Abate Action, which was reserved pending the filing ofa supplemental statement, is deemed moot. 2. The February 5, 2014 deadline for filing a Rule 26(±) Joint Scheduling/Discovery Plan is cancelled. 3. The Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference set for February 12, 2014, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern time is cancelled. 4. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.215, the FAA has withdrawn its Complaint, and this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice.

Attachment: Service ListSERVICE LIST- BYU.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1



### Mr. Mark G. Camacho Complainant's Counsel ONE COPY

SeniorEnforcement Attorney, Central Region, ACE-7 Federal Aviation Administration Room 506, DOT Building, 901 Locust St. Kansas, MO 64106-2641 TEL: 816-329-3765 FAX: 816-329-3771 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0284 (Civil Penalty Action)



### Mr. Douglas 

### J. Barnard Respondent's Counsel Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Respondent 14695 Airport Parkway, 2nd Floor Clearwater, FL 33762 TEL: 727-259-0224 FAX: 727-259-0223 E-MAIL: dougb@planelaw.com Judge 

### lE. Sullivan U.S. Administrative LawJudge ·Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2132 FAX: 202-366-7536 C/0 Kamran Rouhani 2159 McMullen Booth Road Clearwater, FL 33759

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Author: Abt Associates Inc.

Date Created: Date Modified: 5/26/2011 Purpose: This file contains the Producer Price Index for the uncoated paper and multiwall bag manufacturing industry.

File Contents: Worksheet Contents

Tables Contains time-scale PPI data for the paper manufacturing industry from the Bureau of Labor Statistics; used to index 1998 revenue data to 2007 data in the Facility Data fileBureau of Labor Statistics

Series Id: Industry: Product: Base Date: Years:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecAnnual 1998 110.2 109.5108.2 108.1 107.0 107.0 107.0 106.7 105.9 106.3 105.7 106.0 107.3 1999 105.6 105.8 105.7 107.4 109.6 109.6 109.7 112.4 113.8 114.4 112.7 113.7 110.0 2000 113.0 113.2 112.7 112.7 114.8 114.2 114.4 114.3 112.8 112.8112.6 111.6 113.3 2001 111.6 111.7 113.2 114.2 114.3 113.6 113.5112.0 112.2 111.6 112.5112.3 112.7 2002 112.1 111.5111.5111.4 111.4 110.9 112.3 113.0 112.8 113.4 114.2 113.7 112.4 2003 113.7 113.7 114.2 114.2 113.9 114.1 113.9112.4 112.3 112.4 111.8 111.2 113.2 2004 112.2 112.2 112.4 112.9114.0 114.2 114.9117.3 119.6 120.0 121.1 121.1 116.0 2005 121.5121.7 122.0 122.2 122.0 122.0 122.1 122.1 122.2 122.8123.2 123.5122.3 2006 124.4 125.1 124.8 125.9125.5127.0 127.5127.7 127.5126.9126.7 126.7 126.3 2007 126.7 126.9 126.8 126.8127.0 128.3 129.5130.1 130.2 130.4 131.3 131.7 128.8 2008 132.1 132.9 134.1 135.0 135.7 136.2 136.7 138.7 140.2 140.9141.0 140.7 137.0 2009 140.3 140.2 140.3 139.7 139.3 138.7 136.7 136.3 136.0 135.7 135.4 135.0 137.8 2010 134.3 135.4 136.3

Uncoated paper and multiwall bag mfg Uncoated paper and multiwall bag mfg 199012 1998 to 2010 

### Producer Price Index Industry Data Original Data Value

PCU322224322224

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 6, 2010 (02:14:48 PM)
EXHIBIT 99.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, David A. Remijas, Chief Executive Officer of Park Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my
knowledge:

7.       the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this
         certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully complies
         with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
         of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

8.       the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations
         of the Registrant.


Dated:  March 21, 2003                                   /S/ David A. Remijas
                                                         ----------------------
                                                         David A. Remijas
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) Concert Technologies, Inc. ) ) Under Contract No. W912DY-13-F-0399 ) APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT:
APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 60932

Lauren E. Travis, Esq.

Counsel Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq.

Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney Steven W. Feldman, Esq. C. Clay Weisenberger, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorneys U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center Huntsville, AL ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 2 March 2017 

## /MARKN. 

# sTEMPLER Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60932, Appeal ofConcert Technologies, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
Frontier Oilfield Services, Inc. 10-Q

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 Quarterly Report of
Frontier Oilfield Services, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2016, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald Ray Lawhorne,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



1. The Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as applicable; and



2. The information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for
the periods indicated.





|Dated this August 15, 2016 |                                                     
|-------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------
|                           |                                                     
|By:                        | /s/ Donald Ray Lawhorne                             
|                           | Donald Ray Lawhorne,                                
|                           | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of KPMG LLP

The Board of Directors
ICG Communications, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements No. 33-96660 on Form S-3 of IntelCom
Group, Inc., Nos. 333-18839, 333-38823 and 333-74167 on Form S-3 of ICG Communications, Inc., and Nos. 33-14127,
333-25957, 333-39737, 333-45213 and 333-56835 on Form S-8 of ICG Communications, Inc. of our reports dated March 31,
2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of ICG Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) (a debtor-in-possession as of November 14, 2000) as
of December 31, 2000 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' deficit, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2001, and the related financial statement schedule, which reports appear in the December 31, 2001 Annual Report on Form 10-K of ICG
Communications, Inc.

Our
report dated March 31, 2002 contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has suffered recurring losses, has a significant net capital deficiency, and, on
November 14, 2000, the Company and most of its subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, all of which raise substantial doubt
about their ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty. Additionally, the
consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that may be required in the Chapter 11 reorganization.

Our
report refers to a change in the method of accounting for installation revenues.



Denver,
Colorado
April 12, 2002

QuickLinks
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# muiteb**~tate~** 

# <!Courtof**~peaI~** 

# fortbejfeberaI<!Circuit

APPLE INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, 

### v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., AND 

### SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, Defendants-Appellants. 2012-1506 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in case no. 11-CV-1846, Judge Lucy H. Koh. 

### ON MOTION ORDER Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. move without opposition to voluntarily dismiss its appeal with prejudice. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. Case: 12-1506 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 10/15/2012APPLE INC. V. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk ISSUED AS MANDATE: 

## _O_CT_1_5_20_12_ s19 2 Case: 12-1506 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 10/15/2012
Exhibit 22.1
                                  ------------




                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
Name of Subsidiary                         State   or   Jurisdiction   of           Percentage Owned
                                           Incorporation
------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
<S>                                        <C>                                      <C>
Commodore Solution
Technologies, Inc.                         Delaware                                 100%
------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
Commodore Advanced
Sciences, Inc.*                            New Mexico                               100%
------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
A.S. Environmental, Inc.*                  Delaware                                 100%
------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
Commodore Government
Environmental                              Delaware                                 100%
Technologies, Inc.*
------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
Environmental Alternatives, Inc.*          New Mexico                               100%
------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
Advanced Sciences Integrated
Mexico, S.A. de C.V.*                      Mexico                                   100%
------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
Advanced Sciences Integradas S.A.*         Argentina                                100%
------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
</TABLE>


*  Wholly owned subsidiary of Commodore Solution Technologies, Inc.
Blueprint





  Exhibit
10.1











 



AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT


 


 


This Amendment “Amendment” is made and entered into as of
March 10, 2017 and is to the Consulting Agreement executed on April
25, 2016 by and between Wound Management
Technologies,
Inc., a Texas corporation (the “Company”),
and John Siedhoff (“Consultant”). The Company and
Consultant are sometimes each referred to herein as a
“Party” and collectively, as
the “Parties”.


 



Modifications


 


Change of Consultant Name: The Parties agree to
change the Consultant from John Siedhoff to Twin Oaks
Equities, LLC (the new “Consultant”).


 


Change of
Compensation (Article 3): At the February 27, 2017 Board Meeting of
the Company,
the Board voted to amend
the compensation for Consultant. The monthly consulting fee for the
Consultant shall be $20,000 per month, effective January 1,
2017. The Company shall pay any
accrued consulting fees for Consultant to the new
Consultant.


 


All
other Terms and Conditions of the Consulting Agreement shall remain
in effect.  


 


This Amendment
may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to
be an original,
but all of which shall
constitute one and the same agreement.


 


The
Parties have executed this Amendment on the day and year first
above written.


 


 


	

 

	
WOUND
MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

	

 


	

 

	

 

	

 

	

 


	
 

	
By:  

	
/s/ 
Deborah
J. Hutchinson

	

 


	

 

	

 

	
Deborah
J. Hutchinson 

	

 


	

 

	

 

	

President 

	

 







 


 


	

 

	

 

	

 

	

 


	
 

	
By:  

	
/s/ 
John
Siedhoff

	

 


	

 

	

 

	
John
Siedhoff 

	

 


	

 

	

 

	

Twin
Oaks Equities, LLC
May 15 , 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NATIONWIDE BANK , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00782

- CV V.
HUMBLE PARK PLACE, L TD. AND KENNETH R. HENRY , Appellee s

________________________________ Today the Court heard the parties ’ joint motion to set aside the default judgment signed by the court below on March 8, 2013 and remand to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement

. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the judgment VACATED AND REMAND the cause to the trial court for rendition of judgment in ac cordance with the parties’ agreement

. We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal. We further order that mandate be issued immediately. We further order this decision certified below for observance.