alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### _r-- ~ } ~ 

### _



## ~ 

# AKZ® N®BEL GentralResearch 

# SAIVITiZED ICS-331 

## Product name : 1,1,3,3 -tetramefihyibutyl peroxy pivalafie Trade name : Triannnx 425 

## Batchnumber

Analytical documenta,tion ~ File code 

## Authorized by



## Name Functio 

# ~ Date Signature

~ . 0

## ~ 

# ARO NOBEL Spec tx ~ 

### . u v / vI S ; -.."..: t.r Spectrometer : Perkin E1.mer Lambda 14P Product naxne : 1,1, 3, 3-tetramethy].butyl peroxy pival.ate 

### Trade name : Trigonox 425 Sainpl.e-charge nr. . origiZ : ACF. Deventor 

### puri ty 

### Teinperature : Ambient Sample preparation : Dissolved in n-hexane Concentration : 0.108 g/1 Reference : n-hexane Cells , 

### : 10 mtn QS Da.te of recording : 27-05-1997 

### Analytical documentation : 1970283d Laboratory Head of labor_atory 

### Signature File code

~ 

### %0.500 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 A 0.20 0.15 0.-10 0.05

~ 0.001 

# ~ { ` i ! i ` } : 

# ~ f ;



### ~ 

### i ! i ~ 

### i ~ 

### ' i f' j i . 

# 1 ~ 

# -! _.- i ; i , ;

~ 

# . E .- - j = 

# -.
.

--- -. ~ 

### __ ~ 

### :_ 

# - . . . 

# . ~ 

# ._ .-. ~~ -~— -~;- ~ -~ 

# _i-- —i------ --'I
`200.0 250 300' 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 . 700 750 800.0

. nm Date: 5/27/97 Time: 1:37:31 PM

h,;

~ . yq n p A I nQ "It 'ri A2(! 

### Spectrum Name: CALJVWINLAMDATA11970283D.SP Scan Speed: 120.00 nm/min Date Cteated: 5/27/97 

### 1:04:28 PM Slit. Width: 2.0000 nm Instniiiient Model: Lambda 14 Smooth Ban&vidth: 0.00 

### nm Data Interval: 1,0000 

### nm

# ANZO MOME.t

Spectrum : 400 MHz '-H-NMR Spectrometer : Varian Unity 400 Product name : 1 f 1, 

### 3, 3-tetramethylbutyl peroxy pivalat'e Trade na-me : 

### trigonox 425 Sample-charg6 nr.

origin : 

### ACR Deventer purity Temperature ambient s 

### ample preparation : D-Iss . 

### olved in 

### CDC 1 3 

### Concentration : 

### appr'ox. 5 % Reference : 

### TMS Cells Date of recotding : 22-05-19.97 Analytical documentation : H970274.001 Laboratory Head of laboratory L 

### Signature File code

E.

### E 

### n. ❑ ..

.,r 

# ._

CZ.1



## m 1%1 —

~ LO N v x O C 0 0) •,•i L F-~

~ .. a~ 4-) rv rH ro > .,1 a T x 0 L N !]. r-+ T

- i

- + ~ .t2 ~ T ~ ~ tll E tu L 4J N I m 

### Cr)

~-~ s-+

~ 0 E, :3 L.- ~~ U ~ Q ~ i ~ N 

### 2
~ O O IT - 0 4

LC)

re-

f "-



### ••

0

## ~ 

# AKZO NOBEL Speczruzn : IR Spectrometer : NICQLET Ma.gna -- IR Spectrozneter 750 Product zaame : 1,1, 3, 3-tetramethylbutyl peroxy pi.valate Trade name : Trigonox 425 

### Saznple°charge nr. . o.rigin : ACR Deventer puri ty

. 

### Temperature --- -- 

### : ambient Sa.mple preparati.on . Concentrat3on : as such 

### Reference : KBr Cells : KBr-capil.lai.r ce11 Date of record.ing : 22-'05--1997 ~ 

### { A.nalytical docuntentation : 

### Laboratory Head of 1.aboratory
. , ` \ ; 

### Signature

. 

### ! 1
~ Fa.1e code •, ~ _ ,, ; ;

. --- - -- ---------._-_ _. ~ ~ F~ la
• s i •
: {\° 0

~ O CJr cJt- Ot CG th G7 Wt C O - O t~ l

W O ~ O a ~ a x .A ~ cr, US ~ ~ a a ~ ~ ~ N

Cy u O

~ ~ ~

-.W Q1 O O

s a Q CZ

.A , Q O O \
http://www.noticeandcomment.com/Canvas-Air-Inc-Exemption-Rulemaking-fn306623.aspx

As of 23JAN16

Date submitted to FAA: 16JUL15

120 working days: Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Today (23JAN16): 127 working days

Status: ?????

State Representatives POCs:

Senator Thom Tiillis:

Washington, D.C. Office

185 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Phone: (202) 224-6342

Congresswoman Renee Ellmers: 

Washington, D.C. Office 

1210 Longworth HOB Washington, DC 20515 

Phone: (202) 225-4531
# C_2015020EN.01000802.xml

| 22.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/8

---

Addendum to the calls for proposals under the multiannual work programme for grants in the field of the trans-European transport infrastructure under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020

(Official Journal of the European Union C 308 of 11 September 2014)

(2015/C 20/06)

The European Commission, Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport is announcing an addendum to the calls for proposals under the multiannual work programme 2014 for grants in the field of the trans-European transport infrastructure under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020, as published in the Official Journal (2014/C 308/07).

The addendum to the calls for proposals is available on:

http://inea.ec.europa.eu/en/cef/cef_transport/apply_for_funding/cef_transport_call_for_proposals_2014.htm

---
#### S. S. & B. Live Poultry Corporation, Judgment Creditor, *v.*Eli Fleischer, Judgment Debtor.

City Court of New York, Special Term, Bronx County,

December 8, 1937.

*176
      *Lewis M. Fenberg,*for the motion.

*Joseph H. Kassoy,*opposed.

Donnelly, J.

Where a proceeding is to punish a judgment debtor for his failure to obey an order made pursuant to section 793 of the Civil Practice Act, the actual loss or injury to the judgment creditor is the amount due at the time of the hearing of the motion. And this amount is the limit of the fine that may be imposed pursuant to the provisions of section 773 of the Judiciary Law. *(Matter of Williamson*v. *Drogaris, 248*App. Div. 627, and cases there cited.)

At the time the pending motion to punish the judgment debtor for his failure to obey the order made herein pursuant to section 793 of the Civil Practice Act came on for hearing he had filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On July 31, 1937, one day before the hearing of this motion, an order was made by Judge Goddard , in the Federal court staying the judgment creditor from any pro-. ceedings for the collection of the judgment herein. This court is without power to make any order to punish the judgment debtor for his failure to pay any of the installments due subsequent to July 31, 1937. *(Matter of Morris Plan Company of N. Y.*v. *Shear,*164 Misc. 712, opinion by Evans, J., of this court.)

The pending motion is granted, with thirty dollars costs, to the extent of fining the judgment debtor the total of the installments due at the date of the stay ordered by the Federal court; in all other respects the motion is denied, without prejudice.

Settle order in accordance with this decision.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                  US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      24,162,572
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      89,634,348
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,898,003
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             112,485,520
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   109,090,459
<OTHER-SE>                                     250,096
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               112,485,520
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,005,968
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,271,066
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             458,384
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,499,194
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,499,194
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,499,194
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .54



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Petition of Lovina Young and others, Heirs, etc., vs. Groner.

*Two appeals for same relief*— One *dismissed.*— Is *a circuit court order allowing an appeal from a county judge (sec.*29, *chap.*117, *R. S.) appealable ?*

1. Where a party takes two appeals to obtain what can he obtained upon one, if at all, one of them must be dismissed. So *held*where the party appealed from an order of the circuit court allowing an appeal from a decision of the county judge, and also appealed from a subsequent order refusing to dismiss the appeal from the county judge.

2. In *Meade v. Walker,*where there was an appeal from a judgment, and one from an order refusing to vacate it, the judgment was reversed (20 Wis., 618), and the appeal from the order dismissed.

8. Whether an order of the circuit court, allowing an appeal from a decision of the county judge, under sec, 29, chap. 117, R. S., is appealable, *qusere.*

*206APPEAL from tlie Circuit Court for *Rock*County.

This appeal was taken by *Groner*from the order mentioned in the previous case, permitting the petitioners to take an appeal from the decision of the county judge, allowing *Groner’s*claim against the estate of William Young, deceased.

*Isaac Rogers,*for appellant.

*W. II. lbbets,*for 'respondents.

Paine, J.

The facts in regard to this appeal are stated in the opinion in the case of *Jacob Groner,*appellant, against *Lewis Hield and others,*respondents, *(ante*p. 200.) If we should entertain this appeal, it would be necessary to affirm the order, for the reasons given in that opinion.

It is doubtful whether this order, allowing an appeal to be taken from a decision of the county judge, was appealable at all. But, without determining that question, this appeal will be dismissed upon the ground that the appellant moved in the circuit court to dismiss the appeal from the decision of the county judge, and appealed from the order refusing to dismiss it, thus bringing two appeals for the same purpose. In such a case, the practice has been adopted, to dismiss one of the appeals. This was done in the case of *Mead v. Walker,*20 Wis., 518, where the party appealed from a judgment and from an order refusing to vacate it. The report of the case does not- show that the appeal from the order was dismissed; but that fact will appear from the records. And it was dismissed upon the ground that a party ought not to be permitted to bring two appeals to obtain that which he can obtain, if at all, upon one.

*By the Court.*— The appeal is dismissed, with costs.
#### Carpenter and another vs. Shepardson.

*(1,2) Bes Adjudicata. (3) Reference, where long aceoimt involved.*

1. After affirmance here of an order sending' a cause to a referee for trial, as involving a long account, the referee having died, the proper motion would have been for the appointment of another referee.

2. Upon the motion actually made, that the opposite party show cause why the cause should not be referred, etc., the question whether the cause should he referred could not arise, being *res adjudicata.*

3. In this case, although the party opposing the reference offered to stipulate facts tending to abbreviate the account between the parties, yet, as such stipulation still left unadmitted items probably involving a long account, an order referring the cause to another referee was proper on this ground also.

APPEAL from the County Court of *Milwaukee*County.

This appeal was taken by the defendant from an order referring the cause for trial, made upon the death of the person named as referee in a former order of reference.

*558For the appellants, there was a brief by *Rogers <& Rover.*Isis attorneys, with *R. M.*Finch, of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Finch.*

For the respondent, there was a brief by *Geo. B.*Goodwin, and oral argument by *F. 8. Murphey.*

Ryait, O. J.

When this case was here before, 43 Wis., 406, this court affirmed the order of the court below, sending the case to a referee for trial. Pending the reference, the referee died.

An affidavit of the death of the referee was then presented to the court below, and an order made that the appellant show cause why the case should not be referred to some suitable person.

Properly the motion should have been to appoint another referee. But that was the effect of *the order to*show cause, because it had already been determined that the case was a proper one for reference, and the reference had been ordered. And this was obviously the view of the court below, as shown by the order from which this appeal is taken, appointing another person referee under the former order of reference, in place of the referee deceased.

But whatever form the motion might take, the question whether the cause should be referred could not arise upon it. That was *res*adjudicata, unaffected by the accident of the referee’s death.

The appellant, however, appears to have thought differently, and came in upon the order to show cause with a stipulation, undoubtedly tending to abbreviate the account. If this stipulation could have had any effect on the question, it still left an account for reference. Amongst several items which the stipulation does not admit, is one of $2,564.20, for bill rendered apparently for professional services, etc., in *Shepardson v. Yates;*presumably, perhaps, the same case which has been several times before this court. 27 Wis., 238; 37 Wis., 315; *55939 Wis., 178. This aggregate item probably involves a long account in itself.

In either aspect, the order of the court below was properly made.

*By the Court.*— The order of the court below is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1


(a) Certification of Annual Report by Chief Executive Officer.


                            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 GraphOn Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert Dilworth, 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 results of operations of the Company.


                                       /s/ Robert Dilworth
                                       -------------------
                                       Robert Dilworth
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       March 31, 2008



<PAGE>


(b) Certification of Annual Report by Chief Financial Officer.


                            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 GraphOn Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
William Swain, Chief Financial 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 results of operations of the Company.


                                       /s/ William Swain
                                       ------------------------
                                       William Swain
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       March 31, 2008
# C_2015248EN.01000201.xml

| 29.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 248/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 248/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

28 July 2015

(2015/C 248/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1025 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,46 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4615 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,70740 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4537 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0659 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,0215 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,023 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,88 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1216 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4149 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,0315 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5089 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4348 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5457 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6545 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5073 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 283,83 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,8491 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,8459 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5910 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 823,65 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2060 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 50,163 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 66,3770 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,477 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,6916 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,8941 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,4663 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1025

JPY

Japanese yen

136,46

DKK

Danish krone

7,4615

GBP

Pound sterling

0,70740

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4537

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0659

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,0215

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,023

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,88

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1216

RON

Romanian leu

4,4149

TRY

Turkish lira

3,0315

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5089

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4348

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5457

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6545

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5073

KRW

South Korean won

1 283,83

ZAR

South African rand

13,8491

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,8459

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5910

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 823,65

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2060

PHP

Philippine peso

50,163

RUB

Russian rouble

66,3770

THB

Thai baht

38,477

BRL

Brazilian real

3,6916

MXN

Mexican peso

17,8941

INR

Indian rupee

70,4663

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6525

TONY BRYAN SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00191-JCC-IDD)

Submitted: October 31, 2016 Decided: November 23, 2016

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Bryan Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tony Bryan Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Smith has not made the requisite showing. Moreover, we will not 

review claims raised for the first time on appeal. See In re 

Under Seal, 749 F.3d 279, 285 (4th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 
3

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6250

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JIMMY LEE SADLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-93-160, CA-01-4326) Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 8, 2002 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Lee Sadler, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Kevin Frank McDonald, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jimmy Lee Sadler seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) and motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Sadler’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Sadler , Nos. CA-93-160; CA-01-4326 (D.S.C. Nov. 20, 2001; filed Jan. 11, 2002 & entered Jan. 14, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED