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

SATELLITE IMAGERY 

NASA Terra MODIS IL1B Granule mages 

http://modis-atmos.gsfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/index.html 

June 2008

Friday, June 20, 2008 
Saturday, June 21, 2008 
Sunday, June 22, 2008 
Monday, June 23, 2008 
Tuesday, June 24, 2008 
Wednesday, June 25, 2008 
Thursday, June 26, 2008 
Friday, June 27, 2008 
Saturday, June 28, 2008 
Sunday, June 29, 2008 
Monday, June 30, 2008 
July 2008

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 
Wednesday, July 2, 2008 
Thursday, July 3, 2008 
Friday, July 4, 2008 
Saturday, July 5, 2008 
Sunday, July 6, 2008 
Monday, July 7, 2008 
Tuesday, July 8, 2008 
Wednesday, July 9, 2008 
Thursday, July 10, 2008 
Friday, July 11, 2008 
Saturday, July 12, 2008 
Sunday, July 13, 2008 
Monday, July 14, 2008 
Tuesday, July 15, 2008 
Wednesday, July 16, 2008 
Thursday, July 17, 2008 
Friday, July 18, 2008 
Saturday, July 19, 2008 
Sunday, July 20, 2008 
Monday, July 21, 2008 
Tuesday, July 22, 2008 
Wednesday, July 23, 2008 
Thursday, July 24, 2008 
Friday, July 25, 2008 
Saturday, July 26, 2008 
Sunday, July 27, 2008 
Monday, July 28, 2008 
Tuesday, July 29, 2008 
Wednesday, July 30, 2008 
Thursday, July 31, 2008 
August 2008

Saturday, August 9, 2008 
Sunday, August 10, 2008 
Saturday, August 16, 2008
#### BARBA v. STATE.

No. 24621.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 1, 1950.

No appearance for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of unlawfully possessing a narcotic drug, towit: morphine sulphate tablets. He entered his plea of guilty before a jury, which fixed his punishment at two years in the penitentiary.

*454He perfected an appeal to this court, and the record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. In such condition nothing is presented for review and the judgment is affirmed.
#### Edgar Lee AVANTS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27255.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 15, 1954.

*421No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The unlawful sale of whisky in a dry area is the offense, with punishment assessed at a fine of $500.

The record before us contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5237 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Tetraethylammonium 

perfluoroctanesulfonate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 

Tetraethylammonium perfluoroctanesulfonate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TETRAETHYLAMMONIUM PERFLUORO4 CTANESULFONATE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.15 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 Tetraethylammonium perfluoroctanesulfonate) is amended 

8 by striking the date in the effective period column and 

9 inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5237 IH

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

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

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                  
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                    
|View History: Annual                                              
|View History: Annual                                              
|View History:                                                     
|                                                                  
|Louisiana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                  
|                                                                  
|Louisiana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        | 932    |        |        |        |        | 729    | 414    | 461    | 680   
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 674    | 445    | 206    | 284    | 510    | 627    | 575    | 754    | 631    | 316   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 596    | 1,427  | 647    | 1,584  | 1,940  | 1,560  | 1,026  | 1,247  | 1,848  | 9,807 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 10,989 | 5,793  | 3,151  | 1,023  | 2,740  | 1,241  | --     | --     | --     | --    
|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
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CFO PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Newcastle Investment Corp.
      (the "Company") for the annual period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Debra
      A.
      Hess, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that, to the best of her knowledge:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(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.





/s/
      Debra A. Hess


Debra
      A.
      Hess


Chief
      Financial Officer


March
      15,
      2006





This
      certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
**Exhibit 32.1** **CERTIFICATIONS**     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002    (subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350,    Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of    the undersigned officers of Standard Microsystems Corporation    (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officer’s    knowledge, that:     The Quarterly Report on    Form 10-Q    for the quarter ended November 30, 2006 of the Company    fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements    of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934, and information contained in the    Form 10-Q    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial    condition and results of operations of the Company.    Dated: June 27, 2007     By: /s/  Steven    J. Bilodeau
# EXHIBIT 32.1

# Certification Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In
connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) by Electro Energy Inc. (the Registrant), I, Martin G.
Klein, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify that:

|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of Registrant.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/ Martin G. Klein
| | -------------------
| |                    

| | Name: Martin G. Klein         
| | ------------------------------
| | Title: Chief Executive Officer

Dated:  March 31, 2006

---
**Exhibit
      32**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Annual Report of Explorations Group, Inc., (the
      "Registrant") on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended December 31, 2004
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), I, Eric Brown, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
      of
      the Registrant, certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
      the best of my knowledge:




|(1) | The
              Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32, fully
              complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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
              Registrant
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Dated:
              August 3, 2006
            
            /s/
              Eric
              BrownEric Brown
              Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
                Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Registrant and will be
      retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.





This
      certification accompanies the Form 10-KSB to which it relates, is not
      deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be
      incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities
      Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or
      after
      the date of the Form 10-KSB), irrespective of any general incorporation
      language contained in such filing.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5499 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on 2-cyclo-hexylidene-2-phenylacetonitrile. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on 2-cyclohexylidene-2-phenyl-acetonitrile. 

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-CYCLO-HEXYLIDENE-2-PHENYL-ACETONI4 TRILE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 2-cyclo-hexylidene-2- 

phenyl-acetonitrile (CAS 

No. 10461–98–0) (provided for in subheading 

2926.90.43) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5499 IH

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

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10610

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FELIX GUTIERREZ-MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-381-1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Felix Gutierrez-Martinez has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Gutierrez-Martinez has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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

November 29, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10610 Document: 00513777224 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2016
No. 15-10610

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-10610 Document: 00513777224 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2016
703 

OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

am-c- 

-- 

I(onorab1. Xoasr Oarrl8oa, Jr., Direotor 

Dep&rtlg4r& of pub110 UrfotJ 

&lrtin, texar 

Desr 8irr 

ca8e of Calll8on v 

od down br the Oou 

in the oarr refe 

inal opinion. 

th4 polios oriicarr or the 

ant proper17 obtained, 8elzetd 

al8 md other punch board 

1088 to b8 vlthln tha oontemplatlon of Artioler 

636 and 637 of the Penal Code of the atate or Tax88 it murt appear that raid derloer vero being u8ed or exhibited for gaming 

pprpO848. The ooupt held that punch board8 ~41-4 gamblm devi048 per 80 and oould not be u8od for any other purpose. Vith 

ref4renoe to the proporltlon that the derioe8 murt be exhibited 

OF be u8ed for gaming purpoaea, va quota from the deoi8lonr 
704 

goAOrabl4 HO8or @arbIaon, Jr., Dlreotor, Page 2 

"Thb air of the rtatuto, under vhioh 

thlr proooedlng la brought, la to prohibit 

thb U#* OF exhtbltlon Of l 11 pO88iblO g-48 

that fall under the ola88l?ioation of lotteriaa 

Or garbliZ@ d4VlOO8. The oharaotrr of the 

pl'Op4rt~ melLed, th88 18, it8 dCO-Up, doer 

not l UthOr iLit8 b OOpii#OatlOn md dertruotion. 

the bOarda Voro rtorod and lookrd In a varohou84, and v4r4, in no 8armbr, ured or rxhibitsd 

for th4 pur9084 of gsnlng or obtaining bettora. 

‘fa th4 OMOtBWit Of the #tlhtUtO# undrr 

vhloh thla action vaa brought, the L8glrlaturo 

did not 804 fit to oond4m all property th8t 

might br urrd for g8n!i 

T* 

and authorize it8 

d48tz'uotion, adlo it 0 #hOWi that 8UOh propbrtr VI8 dbrigned for @Lming and VILI, at thr 

tlm4 of 84l~ur4, bslng u84d for th4 purpo84 of 

@Y-w* Thur, oourtr oamot extend the atatut4 

80 that f$aring d4ViOe8 Mf bo 0onfiaoat.d and 

dertrored lo the abreaob of evidenoe that 84~4 

vere being Urbd or 4xhIbit4d for Bating. That 

much VI8 not dofondant' pur’poae, 18 evident. 

Th@ PrOpbrty Vh8 80 #tared that it oould not 

rearonablf be maid that it Yam exhibited, and, 

oertalal~', It Yam not being ured for ga81ng.*~~e 

An l pplloation for vrlt o? drror vaa not spplled 

for to thb 8uprma Court. 

W4 believe for your protoctlon that thr ruling In 

the Calllron oaae lhould b4 follov8d. 

vb b4lIov4 th4r4 18 no di#tinOtion betvaen punoh 

boarda, tip #hObt# or #lot Mohin48 In 80 far a8 the 4??44t 

Of the opinion 18 oono4med.
WednesdayAugust26,2015

U.S.DepartmentofTransportation

DocketManagementSystem

1200NewJerseyAvenueSE

Washington,DC20590

by/forAeriapxl,LLC

5425PeachtreePkwySTE257

NorcrossGA30092

RE:ExemptionRequestSection333oftheFAAReformAct

DearSirorMadam,

Thispetitionisbeingsubmittedwithnolegalcounselorconsultingservices.

ThisdocumentconstitutesanexemptionRequestunderSection333ofthe

FAAModernizationandReformActof2012forAviationUnmannedto

performAerialPhotographyby/forAerialpxl,LLC.

ThemainuseofthisUASwouldbeobtainingaerialvideoandstillimagesforclients

(categorieslistedbelow)andobtainingaerialstillimagesforsaletothe

generalpublicthroughonlinegalleries.TheUASsystemsthatIplantouseis

aDJIInspire1andwillbereferencedinthisdocumentandalsointhe

attachedusermanual.

TherequestedexemptionwouldpermitAerialpxl,LLCtopursue

itscommercialinterestsinprovidingservicestoclientsusingasmall

advancedUASinthefollowingareas:

•RealEstate/NewConstruction

•Marketing

•Surveying/Mapping

•GolfCourses/Resorts

•MovieSets

•VideoClips
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Amended Annual Report of Upstream Biosciences Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended to September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Joel Bellenson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
16th day of December, 2010.


/s/ Joel Bellenson
----------------------------------------------------
Joel Bellenson, Chief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporationby reference in Registration Statement No. 333-119008 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-170772 on From S-4 of our reports dated February 25, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Rotech HealthcareInc. and subsidiaries, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Rotech Healthcare Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2010. 

/s/    Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Certified Public Accountants

Tampa, Florida 

February 28,2011
NO. SCPW-12-0000536

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

THE ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF MOANA PACIFIC, Petitioner,

vs. THE HONORABLE RHONDA A. NISHIMURA, JUDGE OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I; KC RAINBOW DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company; KCR DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation; EVERSHINE 1, LLC, a California limited partnership; HAWAIIAN DREDGING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a Hawaii corporation; PERMASTEELISA NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION; a Delaware corporation; BEACHSIDE ROOFING, LLC, a Hawaii corporation; ALL POOL & SPA, INC., a Hawaii corporation; DORVIN D. LEIS CO., INC., a Hawaii corporation; WASA ELECTRICAL SERVICES, INC., a Hawaii corporation; GROUP BUILDERS, INC., a Hawaii corporation; and UPONOR INC., aka UPONOR NORTH AMERICA,

fka WIRSBO, a Minnesota corporation,

Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (Civil No. 09-1-0922-04)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and McKenna, JJ. and Circuit Judge Castagnetti, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of petitioner Association of Apartment Owners of Moana Pacific's petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it appears that the respondent judge had inherent power, pursuant to HRS § 603- 21.9(6), to prohibit petitioner from replacing the Moana Pacific PEX water system until completion of the HRS Chapter 672E Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000536 22-JUN-2012 10:11 AM2

process. Prohibiting petitioner from replacing the PEX system until the HRS Chapter 672E process is complete was not a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action. Such writs are not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures. Where a court has discretion to act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or control the exercise of that discretion, even when the judge has acted erroneously, unless the judge has exceeded his or her jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before the court under circumstances in which it has a legal duty to act.). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, June 22, 2012. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Jeannette H. Castagnetti