alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 190 (Friday, September 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 58592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24958]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3290; Amendment #1]


State of Montana

    In accordance with a notice from the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, dated September 19, 2000, the above-numbered Declaration is 
hereby amended to include the following counties and Indian 
Reservations in the State of Montana as a disaster area due to damages 
caused by wildfires beginning on July 13, 2000 and continuing: Big 
Horn, Blaine, Carter, Chouteau, Custer, Fallon, Fergus, Garfield, 
Golden Valley, Hill, Liberty, Musselshell, Petroleum, Phillips, Powder 
River, Prairie, Rosebud, Toole, Treasure, and Yellowstone Counties, and 
Fort Belknap, Rocky Boy's, Crow, and Northern Cheyenne Indian 
Reservations.
    In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small 
businesses located in the following contiguous counties may be filed 
until the specified date at the previously designated location: Dawson, 
McCone, Valley, and Wibaux Counties in Montana; Campbell, Crook, and 
Sheridan Counties in Wyoming; Bowman, Golden Valley, and Slope Counties 
in North Dakota; and Butte and Harding Counties in South Dakota. Any 
counties contiguous to the above-named primary counties and not listed 
herein have been previously declared.
    The economic injury number for the State of North Dakota is 9I8800 
and for South Dakota the number is 9I8900.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for 
filing applications for physical damage is October 29, 2000 and for 
economic injury the deadline is May 30, 2001.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008.)

    Dated: September 21, 2000.
Herbert L. Mitchell,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-24958 Filed 9-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
|                                                                            
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                              
|View History: Annual                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                        
|View History:                                                               
|                                                                            
|Kentucky Natural Gas Total Liquids Extracted in Tennessee (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                            
|                                                                            
|Kentucky Natural Gas Total Liquids Extracted in Tennessee (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 88    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 48     | 114    | 114    |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

POCONO COMMUNITY THEATER, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF 

ASSESSMENT APPEALS, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 347 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 27th day of September, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
---

Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION FURNISHED 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 amendment to annual report of DigitalPost Interactive, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A  (Amendment No. 1) for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an exhibit (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of DigitalPost Interactive, Inc. does hereby certify, pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





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





Date: June 28, 2010/s/ Michael SawtellMichael SawtellChief Executive Officer
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4884 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-Phenylphenol sodium salt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2012 

Mrs. CAPITO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2- 

Phenylphenol sodium salt. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. 2-PHENYLPHENOL SODIUM SALT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.22.10 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 2-Phenylphenol sodium salt) is amended by striking the 

7 date in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/ 

8 2015’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4884 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<Page>

                               Amendment No. 2 to
                      AAR CORP. Directors' Retirement Plan


         WHEREAS, AAR CORP. ("Company") adopted the AAR CORP. Directors'
Retirement Plan ("Plan") effective April 14, 1992; and

         WHEREAS, the Company reserved the right to amend or terminate the Plan
at any time and from time to time, provided, however, that no such amendment or
termination shall reduce accrued retirement benefits for participants under the
Plan; and

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain respects and
to terminate the Plan prospectively effective April 10, 2001, except as
otherwise provided for below;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby amends and terminates the Plan as
set forth below, effective as of April 10, 2001:

     1.   Any individual who was a Director on April 9, 2001, and who was not
          then an employee of the Company, shall be deemed to be a grandfathered
          Participant under the Plan. The rights of a grandfathered Participant
          to receive benefits under the Plan in accordance with Plan provisions
          shall survive termination of the Plan and such benefits shall be
          determined without regard to whether the grandfathered Participant's
          Years of Service are completed before or after termination of the
          Plan.

     2.   The Plan is hereby terminated effective April 10, 2001, subject to the
          rights of (i) all vested Participants and (ii) all Participants who
          are grandfathered pursuant to paragraph 1 above, to receive or
          continue to receive benefits pursuant to the terms of the Plan as the
          Plan was in effect from time to time prior to such termination and
          applicable to such Participant.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this instrument to be
executed in its name by its duly authorized officer as of the 10th day of April,
2001.

                                      AAR CORP.



                                      By /s/ David P. Storch
                                         ---------------------------------
                                            David P. Storch, President
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

JERRY LEE HUTTO , § § No. 08

- 1 5

- 00 294

- C R Appellant, § Appeal from the
V. § 97th District Court
of Montague County, Texas THE STATE OF TEXAS , § § (TC# 2014

- 0179M

- CR ) Appellee. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION Jerry Lee Hutto appeals h is conviction of indecency with a child by sexual contact

. A ppellant waived his right to a jury trial and entered a negotiated plea of guilty to the lesser

included offense of indecency with a child by sexual contact

. 1 The trial court followed the plea bargain and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for a term of thirteen years. We
affirm.
F RIVOLOUS APPEAL Appellant ’ s court

- appointed counsel has filed a brief in which s he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), by presenting a pr ofessional

1 The indictment charged Appellant with continuous sexual abuse of a child.- 2

-

evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be
advanced. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008)(“In Texas, an
Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel has notified the Court in writing that s he has delivered a copy of counsel ’ s brief and the motion to withdraw to Appellant, and s he has advised Appellant of his right to review the record, file a pro se brief , and to seek discretionary review

. Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 318

- 20 (Tex.Crim.App.
2014 ) (setting forth duties of counsel). Counsel also provided Appellant with a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. Appellant h as not filed a pro se brief

. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief , and agree that the appeal is

w holly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

May 25 , 2016 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ. (Do Not Publish)
#### Ex parte RAMIREZ.

No. 25428.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 30, 1951.

Peden & Stevens, O’Brien Stevens, Houston, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Appellant stands charged in the Criminal District Court of Harris County by five separate indictments, each charging a violation of Sec. 1 of art. 1621b, Vernon’s Penal Code, which makes it unlawful for one, by threat of the use of force or violence, to prevent another person from engaging in any lawful vocation. The maximum penalty provided for a violation of said statute is two years in the penitentiary.

Appellant’s bail, under such indictments, was fixed at the sum of $5,000 in each case, which required the posting of a total bail of $25,000.

Being unable to make such bail, appellant, as relator in the court below, sought, by writ of habeas corpus, a reduction of bail in each case, insisting that he could probably furnish a total bail in the sum of $5000.

Upon hearing such application, the relief prayed for was denied, from which order notice of appeal was given.

Appellant has lived in Houston only a short time. He has no property of his own; his ability to make bail is measured solely by whatever assistance he may receive from friends.

*158The prime object or purpose of bail is to secure the presence of an accused upon the trial of the accusation against him. The amount of bail should be sufficient to assure the attainment of the purpose mentioned. The nature of the accusation and the penalty authorized to be inflicted are to be taken into consideration; also, bail under other charges may be taken into consideration.

In the light of the record here presented and under the rules stated, we have reached the conclusion that the amount of bail as fixed by the trial court is excessive, and that a reasonable bail in each case is the sum of $2,000.

Accordingly, the amount of bail in each of the five oases against appellant, as shown by this record, is here now reduced to and fixed in the sum of $2,000 in each case.

Opinion approved by the court.
|                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                
|View History: Annual                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                          
|View History:                                                                 
|                                                                              
|California - Coastal Region Onshore Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                              
|                                                                              
|California - Coastal Region Onshore Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        | 9      | 8      | 0      | 0      | W      |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
|   | Exhibit 32.01 |
|--------|---------------|

| (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. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  August 10, 2009     |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|
|                                 |   |
| /s/William B. Timmerman              |   |
| William B. Timmerman                 |   |
| Chairman of the Board, President and |   |
| Chief Executive Officer              |   |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 14, 2019

NO. 03-19-00026-CV

Castille Group, L.L.C. and Joseph Castille, Appellants

v.

Hilton Management Group, LLC and LeAnn Hilton, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES KELLY AND SMITH

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on December 11, 2018. Having 

reviewed the record, the Court holds that Castille Group, L.L.C. and Joseph Castille has not 

prosecuted their appeal and did not comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. 

Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of prosecution. The appellants shall pay all 

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
#### William Perkins, Appellant, v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lewis R. Friedman, J.), entered August 30, 1989, which, upon renewal, denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim nunc pro tunc, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff sustained a laceration on his left hand when he was assaulted on April 2, 1988 and sought medical treatment at the emergency room of Bronx Municipal Hospital Center. After his wound was sutured, plaintiff returned to the hospital on April 4th, 7th, 11th and 14th for treatment as an outpatient. Since plaintiff was still experiencing pain in his hand, he sought further treatment at the Brooklyn HIP Center and then, in November of 1988, from a hand specialist who recommended surgery. Plaintiff contends that he would not have needed the surgery which was performed on November 29, 1988 but for Bronx Municipal Hospital Center’s failure to adequately diagnose and treat his injury.

On May 1, 1989, plaintiff moved to file a late notice of claim nunc pro tunc. In denying his motion with leave to renew, the Supreme Court found that plaintiff had failed to submit an affidavit of a party with actual knowledge of the circumstances in support of his motion or an affidavit by an expert as to why the condition was not discovered in time to file a notice of claim within the period allowed by statute. Plaintiff’s motion to renew his application was also denied on the basis of his failure to explain his lateness in filing the notice of claim.

Plaintiff was afforded two opportunities to present a satisfactory explanation for the more than one-year delay in filing a notice of claim. Since he has yet to explain his lateness, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying his application (General Municipal Law § 50-e; *Bullard v City of New York,*118 AD2d 447 [Kassal, J., concurring]; *Rodriguez v City of New York,*86 AD2d 533, *appeal dismissed*58 NY2d 899). In this case, defendant’s possession of the hospital records was insufficient to provide it with actual notice of the *151essential facts constituting the claim *(Matter of Andersen v Nassau County Med. Center,*135 AD2d 530; *cf., Matter of Quiroz v City of New York,*154 AD2d 315). There is nothing in the record to support the conclusion that defendant has not been prejudiced in its investigation of this case by plaintiff's unexplained delay in seeking to file the claim *(Rodriguez v City of New York, supra).*Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Kassal, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.
#### Arthur Don SCALES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27140.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 3, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Henry Wade, Criminal Dist. Atty., Charles S. Potts, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was charged with robbery and by a jury assessed a term of 25 years in the state penitentiary.

The notice of appeal was given in this case on March 12, 1954, which was the day on which the defendant was sentenced. The statement of facts was filed on June 11, 1954, which was ninety-one days after the giving of the notice of appeal. Thus the statement of -facts was filed too late for consideration.

The indictment seems to be regular on its face, and no exceptions or objections thereto are found in the record.

*119Without the statement of facts we are unable to determine what was presented on the trial of the case.

The judgment of the'trial court is therefore affirmed.
Exhibit C 

Case 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 189-2 Filed 01/28/22 Page 1 of 2
EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC

6:20-cv-00075-ADA

Joint Exhibit List

EX Description Bates BEG Bates END

Sponsoring Witness

Date Withdrawn Object

JX-0001 U.S. Patent No. 8,412,488 EF_0013243 EF_0013259JX-0002 U.S. Patent No. 8,738,327 EF_0013642 EF_0013659JX-0003 U.S. Patent No. 10,534,382JX-0004 U.S. Patent No. 8,412,488 File History ECODCT_0000555 ECODCT_0000764JX-0005 U.S. Patent No. 8,738,327 File History ECODCT_0000765 ECODCT_0001153JX-0006 U.S. Patent No. 10,534,382 File History ECODCT_0000001 ECODCT_0000272

Case 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 189-2 Filed 01/28/22 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<CIK>                                          0000078716                      
<NAME>                                         PIONEER HI-BRED
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000
<CURRENCY>                                     USD
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         60
<SECURITIES>                                   16
<RECEIVABLES>                                  259
<ALLOWANCES>                                   22
<INVENTORY>                                    812
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,199
<PP&E>                                         1,058
<DEPRECIATION>                                 504
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,897
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          524
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    16
<COMMON>                                       76
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,153
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,897
<SALES>                                        79
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               79
<CGS>                                          85
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  85
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               83
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (78)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   27
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (51)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (51)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.73)

        


</TABLE>