alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### 6747 Campobe llo Rd., Mississauga,Ontario, L5N 2L7, Can a da Tel: 905-363-4040 ● Toll Free: 800-758-7325 ● Fax: 905-3 63-0102



# Studyof Icy n ene® 

# Soft Foam Insulation Performed by Saskatch ewan Research Coun cil

SummaryReport 1-4801-9-C-94 May1994

P r op r i et ary

am i n e 2-pent anal , 2 me t h y l C h l o r obe nz e ne Propr i e t a ry am i ne Ph enol 2, 6-bi s (1

. 1

- di m e t h y l et hyl ) 4- me t h y l P e r m i s s i bl e concent r a t i on ( T LV ) N E N E N E N E N E D e t e ct i on l i m i t( ppm ) 0

. 0016 0

. 00 014 0. 0013 0. 0 0054 0. 00033 C o nc e n t r at i o n D e t e c t ed ( ppm ) 1 h our 0. 27 0. 03 0. 05 N N 12 hour s 0. 26 0. 0 1 2 0

. 0 08 N N 1 d a y 0. 02 N N N N 2 da y s N N N 0. 0 8 N 4 d a y s N N N 0

. 08 0. 0 1 7 d a y s N N N 0

. 06 0. 008 14 days N N N 0. 009 N 3 0 d a y s NNNN N

N E none est a bl i s h e d

N none det ect e d p p m p a rt s p e r m illio n C o n v e r t to m g / m 3 d i v i de by Propr i e t a ryam i ne 0. 27 2- pe nt a nal , 2 m e t h y l 0. 25 C h l o robenzene 0. 23 Propr i e t a ryam i ne 0. 17 Ph enol 2, 6-bi s ( 1

. 1

- d i m e t hyl e t h y l ) 4-m e t h yl 0. 11 C o m p ound D e t e ct e d 

# DET E CT I O N OF VOCsAND MEASURE M E NT S O F RAT ES O F DE CAY
#### Central Turnpike Corporation, Petitioners for *Certiorari.*

*Oct. term,*1827.

Upon an application for a jury to assess the damages sustained by the location of *s*road, notice should be given to persons interested, to show cause why a warrant for summoning a jury ought not to be issued.

At the Court of Sessions held at Worcester in September, 1826, J. Hall and P. Putnam represented that they had been damaged by the location of a road over their land, by the Central Turnpike Corporation, and by the doings of the committee in estimating the damages ; and they prayed that an order of the court might he made for summoning and empannelling a jury to assess their damages. The petition was granted at the same term, and a warrant was issued to the sheriff, or his deputy, commanding him to summon and empannel a jury ; and at March term, 1827, of the same court, a deputy sheriff returned the warrant, with his doings thereon, together with the verdict of a jury, which verdict was accepted and recorded. At the April term, 1827, of this Court the corporation prayed that a writ of *certiorari*might issue to the Court of Sessions, assigning among other reasons, that the corporation were not notified of the pendency of Hall and Putnam’s petition, nor were notified to show cause why a jury should not be empannelled, before the warrant was issued.

*New ton,*for the corporation,

cited *St.*1786, c. 67 ; *St*1804, c. 125, § 2 ; *St.*1802, c. 135, § 2 ; *Commonwealth*v *15
      *Coombs,*2 Mass. R. 489; *Commonwealth*v. *Cambridge,*4 Mass. R. 627 ; Same v. Same, 7 Mass. R. 158.

*J.*Davis'and *Sibley,*for the respondents.

At April term 1828, a writ of *certiorari*was accordingly granted for the reason above stated. 1

See *Hinkley et al.,*Petitioners, 15 Pick. 448.
#### Perley Tenney *versus*Ezekiel Prince.

Nov. *8th.*

Where a promissory note given by a third person to the plaintiff, was subsequently, before it became due, indorsed in blank by the defendant, and it was testified that the defendant said, that after he had indorsed the note, the maker had secured him by putting real estate into his hands, which he was willing to transfer to the plaintiff, and that either the plaintiff or the defendant said that the plaintiff, in consequence of the indorsement, had forborne to sue the maker, it was *held,*that there was not sufficient evidence of a consideration for the indorsement.

Assumpsit on a promissory note made by Leonard Pierce to the plaintiff, payable in one year. About three months before it became due, it was indorsed in blank by the defendant. In 4 Pick. 385, the Court held that this was a collateral engagement, and that the plaintiff must show that it was fouñded upon a legal consideration. For this purpose the plaintiff called a witness, who testified, that some time after the indorsement, he heard the plaintiff and defendant conversing about the payment of the note ; that the defendant said he was willing to pay it in land, and acknowledged, that after he had indorsed *250it Pierce secured him by putting real estate into his hands, which he was willing to transfer to the plaintiff. The witness also testitled, that at some time he heard the plaintiff or the defendant, but he could not tell which, say, that in consequence of the defendant’s indorsement, the plaintiff had for a time forborne to sue the maker. *Wilde*J., who tried the cause, was of opinion, that the evidence was not sufficient to prove a consideration at the time of *the*indorsement, and the plaintiff agreed to become nonsuit, with liberty to move for a new trial; but the whole Court being now of the same opinion, the nonsuit was made absolute.1

*J. Pickering*and Marston, for the plaintiff,

cited *Neelson*v. *Sanborne,*2 N. Hampsh. R. 413.

Moseley, for the defendant.

1

 See Bayley on Bills (Phillips & Sewall's 2nd ed.) 48, 49; *Flagg*v. *Upham,*10 Pick. 147 ; *Pierce v. Mann,*17 Pick. 244; *Sumner*v. *Gay.*4 Pick (2nd ed.) 312, and note 1.
Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


Asian
      Financial Inc. and Subsidiaries


Audited
      Financial Statements


June
      30,
      2008, 2007 and 2006





To
      The
      Board of Directors


Asian
      Financial Inc. and Subsidiaries





We
      consent to the incorporation in the Report of Asian Financial Inc on Form 10-K
      of our report dated September 5, 2008 on our audits of the consolidated
      financial statements of Asian Financial Inc. and Subsidiaries as of June 30,
      2008 and 2007 and for the years ended June 30, 2008, 2007 and 2006, which our
      reports are incorporated in the Form 10-K.





/s/
      Moore
      Stephens Wurth Frazer and Torbet, LLP


Walnut,
      California


September
      26, 2008
#### PEOPLE *v.*WILSON.

Criminal Law — Insanity—Larceny From the Person.

Refusal of trial court to hold sanity hearing in prosecution for larceny from the person *held,*not error, where record failed to disclose reason for raising the issue of insanity (CL 1948, §§ 750.357, 767.27).

Reference for Points in Headnote

21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 65.

Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Brennan (Vincent J.), J.

Submitted Division 1 June 6, 1968, at Detroit.

(Docket No. 3,687.)

Decided June 24, 1968.

Application for leave to appeal filed December 27, 1968.

Nathaniel Wilson was convicted on a plea of guilty of larceny from the person.

Affirmed.

*Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengoski,*Solicitor General, *William L. Gahalan,*Prosecuting Attorney, *Samuel J. Torina,*Chief Appellate Lawyer, and *Angelo Pentolino,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

*Edward P. Echlin,*for defendant on appeal.

*722Per Curiam.

By Ms plea of guilty on December 6, 1966, defendant was convicted of larceny from the person. CL 1948, § 750.357 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.589). * He was sentenced to prison and appeals. He contends the trial judge erred reversibly by failing to comply with CL 1948, § 767.27 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.967). The record fails to disclose anything requiring a proceeding under the latter statute which requires a sanity hearing when applicable, nor does the record disclose any reason for defendant’s attorney to have raised the issue of insanity.

Affirmed.

Quinn, P. J., and Fitzgerald and J. H. Gtllis, JJ., concurred.

*

 This section was repealed by PA 1966, No 266, effective Mareh 10, 1967, and a new section added to PA 1927, eh 7 (MCLA § 767.27a, Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 28.966 [1]).—Reporter.
#### Japhus Louis BRIGGS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Pamela TOLBERT; Jim Tuten; Mike Stone; John Belton; Unknown Prosecutor; Lewis Jones; Office of District Attorney; Lincoln Parish Detention Center, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-31149

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 21, 2017

Japhus Louis Briggs, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Japhus Louis Briggs, who was previously detained at the Lincoln Parish Detention Center and is currently Louisiana prisoner # 536595, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal of the sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Briggs fails to address many of the district court’s conclusions and, otherwise, makes only conclusional statements that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint. Pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, when an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the decision. *Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Because Briggs has failed to challenge any factual or legal aspect of the district court’s disposition of his claims or the certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith, he has abandoned the critical issue of his appeal. *See id.*Thus, the appeal lacks arguable merit. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*410The district court’s dismissal of Briggs’s complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim and this court’s dismissal of his appeal as frivolous count as two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Briggs is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g).

*

 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 of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Maximiliano JIMENEZ-MEJIA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-11243 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 21, 2017

*404James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Maximiliano Jimenez-Mejia, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Maximiliano Jimenez-Mejia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Jimenez-Mejia 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 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 in part as frivolous, *see*5th Cir. R. 42.2, and in part as moot based on Jimenez-Mejia’s completion of the prison term imposed and the absence of a term of supervised release due to his revocation, *see United States v. Heredia-Holguin,*823 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc).

*

 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.
Second Amendment to the Employment Letter Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.1 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO 

THE 
 EMPLOYMENT LETTER AGREEMENT 

OF 
 GERALD A. FAWCETT 
 This SECOND AMENDMENT TO
THE EMPLOYMENT LETTER AGREEMENT OF GERALD A. FAWCETT (“Amendment”) is made and entered into effective May 9, 2012, by and between GERALD A. FAWCETT (“Employee”) and BUSINESS STAFFING, INC. (the
“Company”). 
 RECITALS 

A. Employee is currently employed by the Company pursuant to that certain employment letter agreement dated January 13, 1998
to be effective as of January 16, 1998, as amended by that First Amendment to Employment Letter Agreement dated May 11, 2011, (“First Amendment”) (collectively as amended, the “Employment Agreement”).

 B. Employee and the Company desire to modify the Employment Agreement to reflect an adjustment in the amount of
Employee’s possible bonus upon a completed sale of the Eagle Mountain landfill project under certain circumstances as described herein. 
 NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged. 
 1. AMENDMENT OF BASE SALARY AND BONUS PARAGRAPH. The “Base Salary and
Bonus” is amended by the deletion of the last two sentences at the end of such paragraph that were added by the First Amendment and substituting therefore the following new sentences at the end of such paragraph: 

“However, Employee shall be entitled to a bonus for upon the sale of the Eagle Mountain landfill project if the landfill project is
sold during that period of time Employee is an active member of the Board of Managers of Kaiser Ventures LLC or within two years after Employee is no longer actively serves on the Board of Managers of Kaiser Ventures LLC. Such bonus shall be on the
same terms and conditions that result in a distribution on the Company’s Class B Units, with the amount of such bonus being calculated as if Employee owned 75,000 Class B Units but the maximum amount of such bonus shall not exceed
$75,000.” 
 2. RATIFICATION OF EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT AS AMENDED. The Employment Agreement is not amended in any respect except as expressly provided herein, and the Employment Agreement as amended by
this Amendment is hereby ratified and approved in all respects. 
 3. GOVERNING
LAW. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 

  
 1 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to the Employment
Agreement to be effective as of the day and year first written above no withstanding the actual date of signature. 
  

									
	“EMPLOYEE”	 		 	THE “COMPANY”
	GERALD A. FAWCETT	 		 	BUSINESS STAFFING, INC.
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Gerald A. Fawcett
	 		 	By:	  	 /s/ Richard E. Stoddard

		 	Gerald A. Fawcett	 		 		  	Richard E. Stoddard
		 		 		 		  	President


  
 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             1,348
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             3,669
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   1,021
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                       0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             3,500
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               3,433
<LOANS>                                           78,413
<ALLOWANCE>                                          205
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    95,862
<DEPOSITS>                                        71,305
<SHORT-TERM>                                       1,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                1,038
<LONG-TERM>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                             162
<OTHER-SE>                                        22,356
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                    95,862
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                    1,499
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                     62
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     144
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                   1,705
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   802
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     4
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                                899
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                         16
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                     0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                      657
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      259
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           259
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                         155
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .10
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                      2.84
<LOANS-NON>                                          385
<LOANS-PAST>                                           0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                       0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     195
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                          6
<RECOVERIES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    205
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 205
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                                0
        


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**The undersigned, Chief Executive Officer of W Holding Company, Inc. (the “Registrant”), herebycertifies that to his knowledge, on the date hereof: (a) the Form 10-K of the Registrant for the Period Ended December 31, 2006, filedon the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and  (b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theRegistrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.       /s/ Frank C. Stipes     Frank C. Stipes, Esq.    Chairman of the Board and Chief    Executive Officer    February 27, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6397 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6397

  To amend title 49, United States Code, to allow certain funds to be 
 used for incremental costs of incorporating art into facilities, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 14, 2023

    Ms. Adams (for herself, Mr. Carson, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. 
 Schakowsky, Ms. Pingree, Mr. McGovern, and Ms. Norton) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 49, United States Code, to allow certain funds to be 
 used for incremental costs of incorporating art into facilities, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Saving Transit Art Resources Act'' 
or the ``STAR Act''.

SEC. 2. ALLOWING ART.

    (a) In General.--Section 5323(h) of title 49, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``or'' after the 
        semicolon;
            (2) by striking paragraph (2); and
            (3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
    (b) No Special Rule.--Section 5309 of such title is amended by--
            (1) striking subsection (p); and
            (2) redesignating subsection (q) as subsection (p).
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 23.1



                        [ LETTERHEAD OF DIXON ODOM PLLC ]



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT



         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-83875) of Wake Forest Bancshares, Inc. of
our report dated October 25, 2001, relating to the consolidated financial
condition of Wake Forest Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiary as of September 30,
2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for the year ended September 30, 2001, appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Wake Forest Bancshares, Inc.





/s/  Dixon Odom PLLC

Sanford, North Carolina
December 20, 2001
BY: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
WYLMINA E. HETTINGA, AN INDIVIDUAL, Appellant, vs. ALAN T. NAHOUM, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, Respondent. No. 83940 

# FILED JAN 1 3 2022

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This pro se appeal was docketed on December 20, 2021, without payment of the requisite filing fee. See NRAP 3(e). That same day, this court issued a notice directing appellant to pay the required filing fee or demonstrate compliance with NRAP 24 within 14 days. The notice advised that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of this appeal. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee or otherwise responded to this court's notice. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See NRAP 3(a)(2).

It is so ORDERED.

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT ELIZABETH A. BROWN

cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge Wylmina E. Ilettinga Holley Driggs/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk



## 2 2 

# - SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA CLERK'S ORDER (0) 1947 algito