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

Information procedure — Technical rules

(2006/C 57/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services. (OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37; OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p.18).

Notifications of draft national technical rules received by the Commission

The Commission draws attention to the judgement delivered on 30 April 1996 in the ‘CIA Security’ case (C-194/94 — ECR I, p. 2201), in which the Court of Justice ruled that Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 98/34/EC (formerly 83/189/EEC) are to be interpreted as meaning that individuals may rely on them before national courts which must decline to apply a national technical regulation which has not been notified in accordance with the Directive.

This judgement confirms the Commission's communication of 1 October 1986 (OJ C 245, 1.10.1986, p. 4).

Accordingly, breach of the obligation to notify renders the technical regulations concerned inapplicable, and consequently unenforceable against individuals.

For more information on the notification procedure, please write to:

Also consult the website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/tris/

If you require any further information on these notifications, please contact the national departments listed below:

LIST OF NATIONAL DEPARTMENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DIRECTIVE 98/34/EC

BELGIUM

CZECH REPUBLIC

DENMARK

GERMANY

ESTONIA

GREECE

SPAIN

FRANCE

IRELAND

ITALY

CYPRUS

LATVIA

LITHUANIA

LUXEMBURG

HUNGARY

MALTA

NETHERLANDS

AUSTRIA

POLAND

PORTUGAL

SLOVENIA

SLOVAKIA

FINLAND

SWEDEN

UNITED KINGDOM

EFTA — ESA

TURKEY

----

(1)  Year — registration number — Member State of origin.

(2)  Period during which the draft may not be adopted.

(3)  No standstill period since the Commission accepts the grounds of urgent adoption invoked by the notifying Member State.

(4)  No standstill period since the measure concerns technical specifications or other requirements or rules on services linked to fiscal or financial measures, pursuant to the third indent of the second paragraph of Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC.

(5)  Information procedure closed.

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 190 (Friday, September 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 58523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24991]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-493-001]

Midcoast Interstate Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

September 25, 2000.
    Take notice that on September 20, 2000, Midcoast Interstate 
Transmission, Inc. (Midcoast) tendered for filing as part of its FERC 
Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff 
sheets, with an effective date of March 27, 2000.

Sub Third Revised Sheet No. 88A
Sub Fifth Revised Sheet No. 89
Sub Third Revised Sheet No. 90
Sub Fourth Revised Sheet No. 92
Sub Fourth Revised Sheet No. 103

    Midcoast states that the filing is being filed to comply with the 
conditions contained in the Commission's September 12, 2000 Letter 
Order in this docket that accepted its filing to eliminate from its 
tariff provisions that are inconsistent with the Commission's decision 
in Order Nos. 637 and 637-A to remove the rate ceiling for short term 
capacity release transactions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. 
This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-24991 Filed 9-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
Articles of Amendment to
                         Articles of Incorporation of

                           Swap and Shop.net Corp.
__________________________________________________________________________
(Name of corporation as currently filed with the Florida Dept. of State)

                                P04000040176
(Document number of corporation, if known)

Pursuant to the provisions of section 607.1006, Florida Statutes, this
Florida Profit Corporation adopts the following amendment(s) to its
articles of incorporation:

NEW CORPORATE NAME (if changing):

                           Core Medical Group, Inc.
__________________________________________________________________________
(must contain the word "corporation", "company", or "incorporated" or the
abbreviation "Corp.", "Inc.", or "Co.") (A professional corporation must
contain the word "chartered", "professional association", or the
abbreviation "P.A.")

AMENDMENTS ADOPTED- (OTHER THAN NAME CHANGE) Indicate Article Number(s)
and/or Article Title(s) being amended, added or deleted: (BE SPECIFIC)





The date of each amendment(s) adoption:              August 2, 2006
                                            ------------------------------

Effective date, if applicable:              ------------------------------
                             (no more than 90 days after amendment file date)



Adoption of Amendment(s)     (CHECK ONE)

____   The amendment(s) was/were approved by the shareholders. The number of
       votes cast for the amendment(s) by the shareholders was/were sufficient
       for approval.

___    The amendment(s) was/were approved by the shareholders through voting
       groups. The following statement must be separately provided for each
       voting group entitled to vote separately on the amendment(s):

___    The number of votes cast for the amendment(s) was/were sufficient for
       approval by (voting group)

_X_    The amendment(s) was/were adopted by the board of directors without
       shareholder action and shareholder action was not required.

___    The amendment(s) was/were adopted by the incorporators without
       shareholder action and shareholder action was not required.

       Signed this     2nd        day of         August,   2006
                    --------------            -----------------------------


        Signature  /s/ Richard C. Turner, Treasurer
                  ----------------------------------------------
(By a director, president or other officer - if directors or officers have not
been selected, by an incorporator - if in the hands of a receiver, trustee, or
other court appointed fiduciary by that fiduciary)


            Richard C. Turner
 -----------------------------------------
 (Typed or printed name of person signing)


              Treasurer
------------------------------------------
 (Title of person signing)




FILING FEE: $35
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO DIVISION

USA

vs.

(1) Maria Luisa Cuellar Santillan

§

§

§

§

§

CRIMINAL NO:

EP:20-CR-00582(1)-DCG

LIST OF WITNESSES

FOR GOVERNMENT FOR DEFENDANT

1. Corina Lopez 1.

2. Angelica Maria Quinonez 2.

3. Arturo Garcia 3.

4. Michael Alan Bock 4.

5. Maria Carmen Briones 5.

6. Patrick Peevey 6.

7. 7.

8. 8.

9. 9.

10. 10.

11. 11.

12. 12.

13. 13.

14. 14.

15. 15.

Case 3:20-cr-00582-DCG Document 97 Filed 04/07/22 Page 1 of 1
#### RHODES v. STATE.

No. 23486.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 13, 1946.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

This appeal is from a sentence of eight years in the penitentiary on a charge of robbery.

The indictment in the case alleges three prior convictions for the purpose of authorizing the penalty prescribed by statute for a third conviction of a similar offense. The contention made is that the state can only allege two prior convictions. The statute places no limit on the number of prior convictions which may be alleged, even though two would be sufficient. A cautious grand jury would allege all available convictions, because of the possibility that one might fail of proof.

We find 1⁄8 the record a plea in bar of the prosecution because there was pending another indictment for the same offense. He had once been tried on that indictment and convicted, but secured a new trial. Before it was dismissed the grand jury re-indicted him, presenting the one on which this conviction was based. The state had a right to select which of the two indictments they would prosecute. Authorities on this subject need not to be cited.

When his case was called for trial appellant asked for a .postponement in order that he may be served with a true copy of the bill of indictment. It appears from the record that the district attorney prepared a bill of indictment for the grand jury prior to its meeting, and that at such time he did not know the name under which appellant was convicted in one of the former convictions alleged. Before the time of the return of the indictment this information was secured and the correct name inserted in the true bill. The clerk failed to make this insertion in the copy served on appellant. This might have raised a serious question except for the fact that in the instant case the former convictions were not utilized to enhance the penalty, and such portion of the certified copy of the bill becomes harmless.

It is further contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The alleged robbery took place in the private office of one of the victims at night time. The prosecuting witness positively identified appellant as the party who entered the office while placing a rag over his face as he came in the door, and committed the robbery with the assistance of some other party. Whatever weakness there might be in the state’s case, together with the evidence for the defense, went before *360the jury under proper instructions and we consider the jury’s finding’s conclusive It cannot be said that there is no evidence to support the conviction.

Finding no error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

NCS MULTISTAGE INC.

vs.

NINE ENERGY SERVICE, INC.

§

§

§

§

§

NO: WA:20-CV-00277-ADA

ORDER

 The jury trial proceedings having concluded in this case, it is hereby 

ORDERED that all physical exhibits introduced into evidence during the trial of said cause be

returned to the party introducing them, pending any additional proceedings in this case.

 SIGNED and ENTERED at Waco, Texas, this the 21st day of January, 2022.

______________________________

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 243 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Advanced Life Sciences Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2007 (the "Report"), I, Michael T. Flavin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 to the extent 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.

| |  |                                                                                                                               
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Date: February 19, 2008                                                                                                       
| |  | /s/MICHAEL T. FLAVIN, PH.D.Michael T. Flavin, Ph.D.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Advanced Life Sciences Holdings, Inc.

---



QuickLinks
#### LAWSON v. STATE.

No. 23212.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 7, 1945.

Ross Hardin and Stanley Bransford, both of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for driving an automobile upon a public highway while appellant was intoxicated, and punishment was assessed at a fine of $50 and 45 days in jail.

No statement of facts or bills of exception are found in the record. In this condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
|Exhibit 10.1
|------------



|A C A HOWE INTERNATIONAL LIMITEDGeological Consultants
|------------------------------------------------------



|254 High Street, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire,
      HP4 1AQ, UK | Telephone: | UK+1442 873398 
      Facsimile: UK+1442 865710 E-mail: howe@easynet.co.
|-------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------



|9th December 2002-12-09
|-----------------------



|The Diriectors Claude Resources Inc,
200,224-4th Ave.S. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7K 5M5
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dear Sirs,
|----------



|With  reference  to the  classification  of
broken  underground  reserves in the  proven category,  the broken material is contained
within surveyed stopes,  the  tonnage of  material,  including  initial  swell drawn from
the stopes is known,  together  with mill  reconciliations,  and the grade of the broken
material  is  established  from face  samples  every  round which give both width of
round and  face  grade at every  advance,  including  dilution.  In my view,  the
material  therefore  falls within the confidence  limits of the proven category as used
at  the mine.
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Yours faithfully,
|-----------------



|/s/  Dr D Patrick
|-----------------



|Dr D Patrick
|------------



| |  | 
| |  | 



---
|                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                  
|View History:                                                                         
|                                                                                      
|No chart available.                                                                   
|No chart available.                                                                   
|                                                                                      
|                                                                                      
|Texas--RRC District 5 Shale Proved Reserves New Field Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MAUREEN SCOTT FRANCO

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

JUDY F. MADEWELL

FIRST ASSISTANT

REGINALDO TREJO, JR.

EDGAR HOLGUIN

EL PASO

SUPERVISORY ASSISTANTS

RICHARD C. WHITE FEDERAL BUILDING

700 E. SAN ANTONIO AVENUE, SUITE D-401

EL PASO, TEXAS 79901-7020

March 6, 2020

TELEPHONE

(915) 534-6525

TOLL FREE

(855) 666-1510

FACSIMILE

(915) 534-6534

SAN ANTONIO

AUSTIN

DEL RIO

PECOS

ALPINE

U.S. District Clerk

Albert Armendariz, Sr.

U.S. Courthouse

525 Magoffin Ave.

El Paso, TX 79901

RE: Assignment of Defense Counsel In:

USA v. Segundo Francisco Yasaca-Alvarez

Cause No. EP-20-M-01695-ATB

Dear Sir/Madam:

Please be advised that I, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jose Moncayo am assigned 

to the above-referenced case.

Very truly yours,

MAUREEN SCOTT FRANCO

Federal Public Defender

/S/

JOSE MONCAYO

ASSISTANT FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

Case 3:20-mj-01695-ATB Document 8 Filed 03/06/20 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4843 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4843

    To extend the suspension of duty on certain ion-exchange resins.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2012

  Mr. Runyan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend the suspension of duty on certain ion-exchange resins.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN ION-EXCHANGE RESINS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.39.30 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain ion-exchange resins) 
is amended by striking the date in the effective period column and 
inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

CADDO SYSTEMS, INC. AND 511 § 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., § 

§ 

Plaintiffs, § C.A. No. 6:20-cv-245-ADA 

v. § 

§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY § 

INCORPORATED, § 

§ 

Defendant. § 

ORDER GRANTING MICROCHIP’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS 

OF PLAINTIFFS’ FINAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS 

Before the Court is Defendant Microchip Technology, Inc.’s (“Microchip”) Motion to 

Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Final Infringement Contentions. Having fully considered the Motion, 

the Opposition, and the submissions related thereto, and the arguments of counsel, the Court 

hereby GRANTS Microchip’s motion to strike. 

The highlighted portions of Exhibits 12 and 13 to Microchip’s motion are hereby stricken 

from Plaintiffs’ Final Infringement Contentions. This order does not affect the status of portions 

of Plaintiffs’ Final Infringement Contentions that Plaintiffs have separately voluntarily withdrawn. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

SIGNED this _____ day of 2021. 

ALAN D. ALBRIGHT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 6:20-cv-00245-ADA Document 48-12 Filed 11/09/21 Page 1 of 1