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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5675 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5675

    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on benzyl carbazate 
            (hydrazinecarboxylic acid, phenylmethyl ester).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on benzyl carbazate 
            (hydrazinecarboxylic acid, phenylmethyl ester).

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

SECTION 1. BENZYL CARBAZATE (HYDRAZINECARBOXYLIC ACID, PHENYLMETHYL 
              ESTER).

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.01.44 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to benzyl carbazate 
(hydrazinecarboxylic acid, phenylmethyl ester)) is amended by striking 
the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 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to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 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>
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 199 (Friday, October 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 60926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26290]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-26-000]


El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

October 6, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 3, 2000, El Paso Natural Gas Company 
(El Paso) tendered for filing to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised 
Volume No. 1-A, the following tariff sheets, with an effective date of 
November 3, 2000:

First Revised Sheet No. 309A
First Revised Sheet No. 445

    El Paso states that the tariff sheets delete El Paso's pro forma 
Trading Partner Agreement and implement the use of the Gas Industry 
Standards Board's Model Trading Partner Agreement.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with 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. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. 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).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-26290 Filed 10-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### SUMRALL v. STATE.

No. 25979.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 29, 1952.

Croslin & Pharr, E. G. Pharr, Lubbock, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for violation of the liquor law with a fine of $500 and 90 days in jail.

There are no bills of exception in the record and the only contention made for reversal in appellant’s brief is based on the insufficiency of the evidence.

The record discloses that the arresting officers went to appellant’s residence and place of business, consisting of a Phillips 66 Service Station with residence rooms connected. It was 3 o’clock in the morning. Several other people were there. The officers were admitted into the house and informed appellant that they wanted to search his place again. He told them to go ahead. There is no question as to the legality of the search.

The constable directing the search testified that they found “108 pints and two fifths, five pints of gin, three cases of Blue Ribbon beer, 26 cans of beer and four pints of whiskey extra.” Their loot was preserved and introduced in evidence before the jury.

As the officers approached they saw a box in the house. The door was locked in their face but they saw appellant’s wife take this box and, after the door was opened and a search made, they found it at the back door. It contained four pints of whiskey and twenty-six cans of beer. The rest of the whiskey and beer was found in the turtleback of an old Chevrolet car parked about twenty feet from the back of the house.

Appellant testified in his own behalf and denied that he knew whose car it was parked in his back yard. He said he did not know it was there until the officers told him, but that it was not there when he closed up that evening. He denied knowing that the box was at the back of the house, and denied the positive statement made by the witness Thompson that it was the box seen in the house and which they saw his wife pick up. He said none of the liquor belonged to him and he did not know who it belonged to.

That the quantity of liquor described was found on the premises of appellant by the *173searching officers is not denied. The jury had a right to disbelieve his denial of the ownership, if they saw fit, and this they evidently did. The sufficiency of the evidence is forcefully challenged in appellant’s brief and, no doubt, the same was as forcefully presented to the jury whose province it is to pass on such matters. It is sufficient to sustain the jury verdict and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Exhibit 99(c)

ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

HSBC Finance Corporation, successor by merger to

Household Finance Corporation ("HSBC" Finance")

HFC REVOLVING CORPORATION

HOUSEHOLD HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2002-2

 

	I, Steven H. Smith, Servicing Officer of HSBC Finance (the "Master Servicer"), DO HEREBY CERTIFY, in accordance with Section 3.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 20, 2002 among HFC Revolving Corporation, as Depositor, Household Home Equity Loan Trust 2002-2, Master Servicer and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.  (as Successor in Interest to Bank One, National Association ), as Trustee, (the "Agreement")  that:

A review of the activities of the Master Servicer from January 1 through 

December 31, 2004 and of its performance under the Agreement has                                                                       been made under my supervision; and

To the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its material obligations under the Agreement throughout such Year. Based on such review, the Master Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge, performed in all material respects its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year and no default in the performance of such obligations has occurred or is continuing except as set forth below.

			NONE

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this certificate this 1st day of March, 2005.                              

 

					HSBC Finance Corporation, as Master Servicer

 

						/s/ Steven H. Smith			
					Steven H. Smith

					Servicing Officer
#### Ex parte WILBUR.

No. 24900.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 31, 1950.

Goodenow & Gregg, by George I. Goode-now, Texas City, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was tried and convicted in the corporation court of the City of Galveston and fined $1.00 and costs, on a complaint charging him with “Violating Grain Ordinance.” He appealed to the County Court where he was again tried, found guilty and assessed a fine of $25.00. He then filed his application for writ of habeas corpus before the District Judge who, after hearing, refused to order his release. This is an appeal from that order.

It is alleged that the relator was illegally restrained of his liberty by F. L. Biaggne, Sheriff of Galveston County.

According to the application, supported by the evidence in the case, the “Grain Ordinance” referred to in the complaint reads as follows: “It shall be unlawful for any person to take, receive or carry away any corn, grain, produce or other commodity from any grain car or other car, loaded or unloaded, standing upon any waterfront property and it shall be unlawful for any person to buy, receive or handle any such corn, grain, produce or other commodity in any quantities, so taken or received from such cars. But nothing in this section shall be construed as applying to employees upon waterfront properties who are lawfully engaged in the duties of their employment. (Code 1917, art. 141.)”

The petition attacks the validity of said ordinance on a number of grounds. The State was represented by the Assistant County Attorneys Jean Hosey and Hugh Gibson, Jr., who contested the application and cross-examined appellant’s witnesses. The ordinance was introduced in evidence in accordance with the langauge above quoted and if there is any penalty affixed for the violation denounced it does not appear in this record. Consequently, no authority is shown for the assessing of the fine imposed by the jury.

It requires no analysis of the ordinance quoted to discover that it is vague, indefinite, uncertain and probably subject to other exceptions. There is no limitation, description or other identifying words to fix the area in which one is forbidden to take grain or other produce from a grain car or other car. If given effect, one owning property and living on a waterfront, according to the ordinary acceptation of that term, could not haul grain to his own bin and unload it therein for his own use, regardless of how or where he acquired it. The only exception to the article would be “employees upon waterfront properties who are lawfully engaged in the duties of *541their employment.” Owners of waterfront property, as well as strangers to it, would he forbidden to unload any corn, grain, produce or other commodity for any purpose, under any condition, within the area for which the ordinance was intended to apply.

Without discussing the other objections raised to the ordinance, we think it is void for uncertainty. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the appellant is ordered discharged from the custody of the respondent.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1251

LAZARE KAPLAN INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PHOTOSCRIBE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

and DAVID BENDERLY,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of

New York in 06-CV-4005, Senior Judge Thomas P. Griesa.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Lazare Kaplan International, Inc. moves to substitute Harold J. McElhinny, Esq.

as its principal counsel.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

FOR THE COURT

JUN 2 5 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly

_r It4u U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

JUN 2 5 2009

JAN HORNee

CLERK
cc:	Harold J. McElhinny, Esq.

Ira J. Schaefer, Esq.

John AlIcock, Esq.

s8

2009-1251	 2
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT We ProtectHoosiers andOurEnvironment. MitchellE. DanielsJr. 100 North Senate Avenue Governor Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (317) 232-8603 Thomas W. Easterly Toll Free (800) 451-6027 Commissioner www.idem.IN.gov
June 25, 2012 George T. Czerniak Acting Director, Air and Radiation Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Region V 77WestJackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604-3950 Dear Mr. Czerniak: Re: Clarification on Indiana's Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) to address the 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). This letter is in response to a request by yourstafffor clarification regarding the permitting ofgreenhouse gases (GHG) in Indiana's prevention ofsignificantdeterioration (PSD) program. On December 30, 2010, U.S. EPA issued the "Narrowing Rule," which limited U.S. EPA approval ofState PSD programs for GHG-emitting sources. Specifically, U.S. EPA's Narrowing Rule eliminated the PSD obligations under Federal lawfor sources below EPA's "Tailoring Rule" thresholds (e.g., 75,000 tons peryear) expressed as a carbon dioxide equivalent (COze). U.S. EPA approved revisions to Indiana's SIP adopting the Federal thresholds for GHG-emitting sources on September 28, 2011. Therefore, Indiana meets all applicable requirements related to GHG in our PSD program forthe purposes of Indiana's infrastructure SIP addressing the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Cc: Andy Chang, U.S. EPA Christine Pedersen, IDEM Scott Deloney, IDEM
RecycledPaper 

### (i) Sincerely,

# )~ 

# Sc.M-3 Keith Baugues Assistant Commissioner Office ofAir Quality

An Equal OpportunityEmployer Please Recycle 

### 0
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 33.1

            CERTIFICATION OF TRUSTEE OF TREASURE ISLAND ROYALTY TRUST
             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 Treasure Island Royalty Trust (the
"Trust") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the
Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its 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
Trust.

                                       U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
                                       Trustee for Treasure Island Royalty Trust


Date: March 31, 2008                   By: /s/ Steven A. Finklea
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Steven A. Finklea
                                           Vice President

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Treasure Island Royalty Trust and will be retained by the
Treasure Island Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
, J. 

REVERSE the order granting the motion to dismiss AND 

REMAND for proceedings consistent with this order. 1 

Saitta 

PARRAGUIRRE, J., concurring: 

For the reasons stated in the SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. 

U.S. Bank, NA., 130 Nev. , 334 P.3d 408 (2014), dissent, I disagree 

that respondent lost its lien priority by virtue of the homeowners 

association's nonjudicial foreclosure sale. I recognize, however, that SFR 

Investments is now the controlling law and, thusly, concur in the 

disposition of this appeal. 

lisbamACknarrim=3,4J. 

Parraguirre 

cc: Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge 

Law Offices of Michael F. Bohn, Ltd. 

Akerman LLP/Las Vegas 

Ballard Spahr, LLP 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'The injunction imposed by our March 3, 2014, order is vacated. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1947A
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 on Form 10-QSB of
StockerYale, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark W. Blodgett, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §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; 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/ Mark W. Blodgett                 
|Mark W. Blodgett                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|May 16, 2005
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

BRYNNE SOUKUP, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-648-RP

§

FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., ET AL. §

§

Defendant. § 

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION 

To: FLIGHT SERVICES & SYSTEMS, LLC

c/o National Registered Agents, Inc., Registered Agent

4400 Esaton Commons Way, , Suite 125

Toledo, OH, TX 43219

A lawsuit has been filed against you. 

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you 

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose 

names and addresses are: 

Daniel B. Ross

Texas State Bar No. 00789810

dan@rosslawgroup.com

Trenton Lacy

Texas State Bar No. 24106176

trenton@rosslawgroup.com

1104 San Antonio Street

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 474-7677 Telephone

(512) 474-5306 Facsimile

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court. 

 CLERK OF COURT 

Date:

 Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 8 Filed 07/21/20 Page 1 of 2
Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-648-RP

PROOF OF SERVICE 

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) 

I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place 

of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and d\iscretion who resides there, 

on ( date ) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or 

I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is 

. 

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ . 

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. Date: 

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address Additional 

information regarding attempted service, etc: 

.

; or

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 8 Filed 07/21/20 Page 2 of 2
July 9, 2015

Mr. Kenneth J. O’Brien 2505 Lexington St. Lafayette, CO 80026

Dear Mr. O’Brien:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 29 th 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 2540), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/ Brittany Newton Program Analyst, Airmen and Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q DATED
JUNE 28, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<CIK> 0000094673
<NAME> STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-27-1996
<PERIOD-END>                             JUN-28-1996
<CASH>                                       489,780
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                404,446  <F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                  274,815
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1,174,143
<PP&E>                                       327,653  <F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             1,919,188
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        506,963
<BONDS>                                      268,726
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                      11,402
<OTHER-SE>                                 1,114,074
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               1,919,188
<SALES>                                      658,080
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             932,786
<CGS>                                        385,467
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                532,556
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              98,617
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            17,018
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               86,849
<INCOME-TAX>                                  23,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           63,449
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                9,535
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  72,984
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   0.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.63

<FN>
  <F1> Asset values for the interim period
       represent net amounts.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>