alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
REF ID:A65971 

• TOP SEU!WT J>Ds 

·Y <ti? 

.Pl~ 

USCIB: 13/300 

2 Januar.r 1953 

Cleannae ot Mr. Roberti Cutler tor 

Spec1al Intelllgmae. 

24 

lo 'l'he encloeure ia torwudecl tO&" YGt.e meet aetlon 

at the request ot the member 1"8pNSenting tbe CentNl Intelli&ence A&mVo 

2. In that the originator bu turtb• requested 

not,iticatiGD ot Board aoticn prior to 8 Januar.r 19539 all 

wben an ukecl to camamlcate their Yi.en to the uncler-

•ignecl not; later tban 12009 WadneedaJ' 9 7 J81lU&J7 19530 

Bnoloeul'e - l 

CIA MIU tor HbN ot USCIB, 

dtd J1 Dee 52, abon •• .,. 

USCIB: l:J/300 

TOP SECRET 

eclassified and a roved for r lease b NSA on 4-02-2014 ursuantto E.O. 135 

I./:~ 

Qde· 
.. 

CMRAL DrBLLIGJllCB AG8CI 

WASHDO'l'OI 259 D.c. 

. 31 Decanber 1952 

.. 

... 

Bncloeure v!tb USCD J.3/300 dated 2 Januar,r 1953· 

,. 

TOP SECRET
# MY**REN CONSULTING, INC. 512 WILLIAMS LAKE ROAD**  **COLVILLE, WA 99114 OFFICE: 509 684 1154 FAX: 509 68**  **4 3987**  **LAB: 509 685 9458 email: atmyren@gmail.com** 

**DATE: 28**  **March 20**  **11**
**TO: Gil Wood** 
**CC: Rod Za nder**  **, Tim Seaton**  **FROM: Ben Myren**
**RE: PROPOSED 2.0 G/HR DAILY AVERAGE STANDARD FOR MASONRY HEATERS**  **The proposed 2.0 g/hr daily average standard for masonry heaters may not be the best way to look at this issue because the proposed**  **standard appears to discri minate against large heaters. The daily average**  **emission rate is affected by 4**  **things: (**  **1. )**  **the heater’s performance, (**  **2. )**  **the test method used to measure heater performance ,**  **( 3.**  **) the firing**  **interval used to determine the daily average and (4.) whether or not the**  **correction factor used to convert M5G to M5H is used to adjust the emissions.**  **Here some examples based upon typical numbers for a small and large unit**  **, both having emission factors right at 1.0 g/kg when cordwood**  **is being burne d as fuel** 

**. Small Unit (20** 
**- 30 lbs. of fuel/ firing)**  **Test Method g/hr**  **Firing Interval Daily Average**  **CO Reg # 4 6.5**  **12 hours 0.542**  **ASTM Crib 5.0**  **12 “ 0.417**  **Cordwood 3.0**  **12 “ 0.285**  **Large Unit (40**
**- 60 lbs. of fuel/ firing)**  **CO Reg # 4 12.0**  **12 hours 1.000**  **ASTM Crib N/A**  **Cordwood 9.0**  **12 “ 0.750**  **A wood stove burning continuously at 4.5 g/hr and at 1 kg/hr would emit**  **both 4.5 g/kg and 4.5 g/hr and in a 12 hour period would, depending**  **upon its size, probably burn somewhere b etween 20 and 40 lbs of wood. So**  **its daily average would be 4.5 g/hr, which is significantly higher than any of the MH daily averages in the above examples. Even if the**  **emission factor were to increased to 2.5 g/kg** 
**– and the dry burn rate remained the**  **sa me**  **- the emission rate would still be below the proposed daily average**  **for the small unit. But the emission rate for the large unit would now be above the proposed standard. However, if the firing interval were to be**  **changed to 24 hours, the unit would r emain in compliance.**  **Conversely, if the firing interval were to be changed to 8 hours, the emissions would**  **change (increase). So how the daily average standard is calculated will have a huge impact on whether or not units can be certified or not.** 
**So in my mind the real question is, “Do we really need a daily**  **average standard?” If the emission factor is set at**  **≤2.5 g/kg, then the issue of a daily average standard is not really important because the low**  **emission factor insures a low emission rate. Let me know if you**  **have any questions**

**. Regards,**  **Ben Myren**
#### F. Dohmen Company (Limited), Respondent, vs. Manufacturers’ *&*Builders’ Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.

*March 19*

April *30, 1897.*

*F. Dohmen Co. v. Niagara F. Ins. Co., ante,*p. 38, followed.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Milwaukee county: E. N. Austin, Judge. .

*Reversed.*

This is an action to recover on a policy of fire insurance *58covering the same property mentioned in the case of *F. Doh-men Go. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., ante,*p. 38. The action is on one of the policies mentioned in' such previous case. It was issued October 22, 1892, insuring such property for the term of one year to the amount of $1,250. The complaint alleged all the facts necessary to a recovery. ’ The answer put in issue the amount of the loss, and the issue thus raised was the only one litigated on the trial. There was a motion for a change of venue to the circuit court made and denied. The objection to the granting of such motion was thereafter withdrawn by stipulation, and an order entered changing the place of trial. Defendant failed to pay the clerk’s fees and have the papers transmitted within the time prescribed by statute. The clerk refused to transmit the papers after the expiration of such time, and thereupon defendant moved the court for an order for such transmission, which motion was denied, and defendant excepted thereto. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, defendant’s counsel moved the Court for a nonsuit, which was overruled. No evidence was offered by defendant. On motion of plaintiff’s counsel, the court directed a verdict in plaintiff’s favor for $1,101.89, the full amount claimed. There was a motion to set the verdict aside as against the evidence and for errors committed on the trial, which was overruled and excepted to. Judgment was entered in plaintiff’s favor upon the verdict, and defendant appealed.

For the appellant there was a brief by *'Miller, Noyes, Miller <& Wahl,*attorneys, and *J. V. Quarles,*of counsel, and oral argument by *Geo. P. Miller*and *Mr. Quarles.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Timlm <& Glicks-man,*and oral argument by *Nathan*Glioksmam.

Maeshall, J.

The only questions presented on this appeal relate to proceedings for a change of venue and to the exceptions taken to the admission of evidence of the con*59tents of plaintiff’s books, without any foundation being laid therefor. The same questions were raised and determined in *F. Dohmen Co. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., ante,*p. 38. The decision in that case rules this, and requires a reversal of the judgment appealed from.

*By the*Court.— The judgment of the superior court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
,. e TOP WR:IH~i&lBl'RS 4 e 

EO 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 

'PGP SESR:'!l' lHBBR = a.s. E1ES ONfZf P4 86-36/50 USC 3605 

SUBJECT NUMBER 

USCIB: 9.2/33 

Subject: 

Item B (not on agenda) dis.cussed at the 113th Meeting c:>f 

USCIB, held on 11 March 1955. 

COMINT Capability.to Provide Early Warning o:r CHICOM 

Attack on Formosa. 

GENERAL CANINE reported on the above subject, using as a basis for his 

report a message received :.Crom Captain Wright, in CINCPAC, which informed 

him of the apparrnt1v successful natr• re of the discussions·· ... between Admirals 

Carney and Pride ---~~~~~~~-

ADMIRAL DANIEL who had also been prepared to inform the .members on this 

matter, read !or their information a copy o! a message from Admiral Pride to 

Admiral Carney, as follows: 

The members noted the in!ormation presented. 

USCIB: 9 • 2/33 - 22 -

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 03-18-2014 pursuant to E. 0. 1352B 

TOP SECRET EIDER
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-20-00412-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.A.C., A.I.A.C., S.A.C., and H.A.C., Children

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-PA-00887

Honorable Linda Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED. 

Appellant is unable to afford payment of costs; no costs of court are taxed in this appeal.

SIGNED February 3, 2021.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 26, 2010 

s0222 

Order 

 

February 26, 2010 

139572 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139572 

 COA: 291321 

Emmet CC: 05-002399-FH 

BRADFORD CARL ROSS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 16, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed August 14, 2019.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00582

- CR
DARIN BERNARD JOHNSO N , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F17

- 75869

- V


### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Molberg Before the Court is appellant’s August 12, 2019 motio n to withdraw the appeal. In the motion, appellant states the trial court granted the motion for new trial and asks to withdraw the appeal. The motion is signed by appella te counsel but is not signed by appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

.
P. 42.2(a) (appellant a nd his attorney must si gn written motion to dismiss). Therefore, we deny

the motion. Also before the Court is a copy of the trial court’s July 19, 2019 order granting appellant’s
motion for new trial. When the trial court grants a motion for new trial, t he case is restored to its position before the former trial. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 21.9(b). Because there is no sentence to be appealed, we have no jurisdiction over the appeal. See Waller v. State , 931 S.W.2d 640, 643

– 44
(Tex. App.

– Dallas 1996, no pet.).– 2

–

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b)

190582F.U05 /Ken Molberg/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE– 3

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

DARIN BERNARD JOHNSON, Appellant

No. 05

- 19

- 00582

- CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F17

- 75869

- V. Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg, Justices Myers and Carlyle participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 14th day of August, 2019.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 15802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05652]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8217]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Hans Richter: Encounters''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Hans Richter: Encounters,'' imported from 
abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of 
cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Los Angeles 
County Museum of Art in Los Angeles, California from on or about May 5, 
2013, until on or about September 2, 2013, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Ona M. Hahs, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6473). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: March 5, 2013.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-05652 Filed 3-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
ex4_1.htm


    Exhibit
      4.1

     

     

    Form
      of Common Stock
      Certificate

    (to
      be provided by amendment)
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.4

                   CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION FILED TO CORRECT
     A CERTAIN ERROR IN THE CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
                 INCORPORATION OF DATA BROADCASTING CORPORATION
           FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF DELAWARE
                              ON FEBRUARY 25, 2000

     Data Broadcasting Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "
Corporation"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

          1. The name of the corporation is: Data Broadcasting Corporation.

          2. That a Certificate of Amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation
     (the "Certificate") was filed with the Secretary of State of Delaware on
     February 25, 2000 and that said Certificate requires correction as
     permitted by Section 103(f) of the Delaware General Corporation Law. In
     accordance with Section 103(f) of the Delaware General Corporation Law, the
     Certificate as corrected hereby shall be effective as of February 25, 2000.

          3. That said Certificate did not state which day in November, 1999 the
     Board of Directors adopted the resolution set forth in the Certificate.

          4. Paragraph FIRST of the Certificate hereby is corrected to read as
     follows:

             FIRST:  That at a meeting of the Board of Directors held on
        November 9, 1999 a resolution was duly adopted setting forth a proposed
        amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation,
        declaring said amendment to be advisable and calling a meeting of the
        stockholders of the Corporation for consideration thereof. The
        resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned officer has executed this Certificate
of Correction on behalf of the Corporation and does verify and affirm that such
is the act and deed of the Corporation and that the facts stated herein are true
as of this 30th day of April, 2000.

                                          DATA BROADCASTING CORPORATION

                                          By:/s/ Stuart J. Clark
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name:  Stuart J. Clark
                                            Title:   President and Chief
                                              Executive Officer
# CE2004078EN.01095601.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/956 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/956

---

(2004/C 78 E/1012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0544/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   CAP: intended change in the ratio between payments to large and small farms, a ceiling for aid per farm and limiting the damage caused to third countries

Subject:

| 1. | When the reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy proposed by the Commission are implemented, what impact does the Commission expect them to have on the ratio between payments to large and small farms: will it remain unaltered or will it change? What impact does the Commission intend the reforms to have in this respect? |
| --- | --- |

1.

When the reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy proposed by the Commission are implemented, what impact does the Commission expect them to have on the ratio between payments to large and small farms: will it remain unaltered or will it change? What impact does the Commission intend the reforms to have in this respect?

| 2. | Apart from the changes which the Commission has already proposed, does it consider additional measures necessary to prevent further emigration from rural to urban areas, which would ultimately cut agricultural production for the EU's internal market? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Apart from the changes which the Commission has already proposed, does it consider additional measures necessary to prevent further emigration from rural to urban areas, which would ultimately cut agricultural production for the EU's internal market?

| 3. | Will the Commission work towards a subsidy model which safeguards the interests of small farmers better than at present, for example by setting a limit — e.g. EUR 30 000 — for financial aid to a single farm? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Will the Commission work towards a subsidy model which safeguards the interests of small farmers better than at present, for example by setting a limit — e.g. EUR 30 000 — for financial aid to a single farm?

| 4. | When weighing up the shape which the reform of the CAP should ultimately take, will the Commission also bear in mind the impact on small farmers in other parts of the world, particularly their uncertainty regarding the supply of food and industrial raw materials for the internal market in the Third World due to market-distorting, relatively cheap imports of farm surpluses from EU Member States? |
| --- | --- |

4.

When weighing up the shape which the reform of the CAP should ultimately take, will the Commission also bear in mind the impact on small farmers in other parts of the world, particularly their uncertainty regarding the supply of food and industrial raw materials for the internal market in the Third World due to market-distorting, relatively cheap imports of farm surpluses from EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

(22 March 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

---
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT A

# noRECEfVED.·. OFFICE OF HEARINGS ·

wASHINGTON, D.C. 

## AUG 1 62012
In The Matter Of: HELOAIR, INC., Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) 

# HlA.P·UNG OOCKET DocketNo. FAA-2012-0472 Case No. 2011-EA-210081

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO MOTIONFORPOSTPONEMENT OFRULE 16 LITIGATION SCHEDULING CONFERENCE COMES NOW Respondent, HeloAir, Inc., by counsel, and for its response to Complainant's Motion for Postponement ofRule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference ("the Motion"), states as follows: Counsel for Respondent filed a Notice ofAppearance on August 7, 2012. Respondent filed a Motionto Dismiss and an Answer on August 9, 2012. On August 3, 2012 the FAA filed the Motion. Respondent was 

### inthe process ofobtaining counsel whenthe Motion was served. Respondent, by counsel, agrees withthe FAA's Motion. Respondent agrees to the one (1) day continuance and that the Rnle 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference can be held on September 19, 2012by telephone at any time that day.

Dated: August 10, 2012

{W2044110.1**009816~084619}** Respectfully submitted,
SANDS ANDERSON

### PC

G. Butler, III, Esquire (VSB # 46200) (DCB # 460969) 

### Counsel for Respondent SANDS ANDERSON

### PC Bank ofAmerica Center 1111 East Main Street, Suite 2400 Richmond, Virginia 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-1636 Facsimile: (804) 783-7291CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this date sent via facsimile and mailed, by United States mail, postage prepaid, an original and one copy ofthe foregoing Response to Complainant'1l Motion for Postponement ofRule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference addressed to: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 Facsimile: 202-493-5142 And further, that I have this date sent via facsimile and mailed, byUnited States mail, one copy of the foregoing Response to Complainant's Motion for Postponement ofRule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference addressed to: Zachary M. Berman, Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AEA-7 Eastern Region Federal Aviation Administration 1 Aviation Plaza Jamaica, New York 11434 Telephone: 718-553-3258 Facsimile: 718-995-5699 The Honorable J.E. Sullivan,Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, D.C. 20590 Telephone: 202-366-2132 Facsimile: 202-366-7536 Whit Baldwin, President HeloAir, Inc., Respondent 5721 Gulfstream Road Richmond, Virginia 23250 Telephone: 804-226-3400 Facsimile: 804-226-3494

Dated: August 10,2012

{W2044llO.l 009816-084619}
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 Annual Report of Braintech, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frederick Weidinger the Principal 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; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Frederick Weidinger    
|Frederick Weidinger        
|Principal Executive Officer
|March 27, 2008
DISMISS and Opinion Filed March 13, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-23-01180-CV

JOSE ATONAL MARTINEZ, Appellant

V.

REX OGHENEVOMERHO, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-02732-E

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns

Before the Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal. We grant the 

motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

231180f.p05 /Robert D. Burns, III//

ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JOSE ATONAL MARTINEZ, 

Appellant

No. 05-23-01180-CV V.

REX OGHENEVOMERHO, 

Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-02732-

E.

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Molberg and 

Goldstein participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee REX OGHENEVOMERHO recover his costs 

of this appeal from appellant JOSE ATONAL MARTINEZ.

Judgment entered this 13th day of March, 2024.