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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 21 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 21

To authorize testimony in United States of America v. Vincent J. Fumo, 
                                 et al.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 26, 2009

   Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize testimony in United States of America v. Vincent J. Fumo, 
                                 et al.

Whereas, in the case of United States of America v. Vincent J. Fumo, et al., Cr. 
        No. 06-319, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern 
        District of Pennsylvania, testimony has been subpoenaed from David 
        Urban, a former employee of the office of Senator Arlen Specter;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate;
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That David Urban is authorized to testify in United 
States of America v. Vincent J. Fumo, et al., except concerning matters 
for which a privilege should be asserted.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0171 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CHINA ROSE DAWN DAVIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including February 13, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 3 2023

01/03/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0171
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, 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

June 25, 2012

h0618

Order 

June 25, 2012

144742

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144742

COA: 300371

Wayne CC: 08-019415-FC

ANDRE LAMONT FRANKLIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 19, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit 23.3**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors

Safeguard Scientifics, Inc.: 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-65092, 333-73284, 333-86777, 333-103976, 333-118046, 333-129617, 333-147174, 333-171225, 333-171226 and 333-175845) on Form S-8, in the registration statements(Nos. 333-114794 and 333-171224) on Form S-3, and in the registration statement (No. 333-171223) on Form S-4 of Safeguard Scientifics, Inc. of our report dated March 27, 2013 with respect to the balance sheets of NuPathe Inc. as ofDecember 31, 2012 and 2011, and the related statements of operations, redeemable convertible preferred stock and stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2012 andthe period from January 7, 2005 (inception) through December 31, 2012, which report appears in the December 31, 2012 annual report on Form 10-K of NuPathe Inc. 

Our report dated March 27, 2013 contains an explanatory paragraph that states that NuPathe Inc. has incurred recurring losses and negative cash flows from operations since its inception that raisesubstantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

March 27, 2013
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21

- 0372 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRYCE CALEB HAMERNICK,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT** Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until January 18, 2022, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court December 14 2021

12/14/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0372
#### State v. Laurelez

108,051

08/19/13

Denied. .

Unpublished
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 534 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 534

  Expressing support for designation of May 1, 2010, as ``Silver Star 
                         Service Banner Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 19, 2010

   Mr. Bond (for himself and Mrs. McCaskill) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing support for designation of May 1, 2010, as ``Silver Star 
                         Service Banner Day''.

Whereas the Senate has always honored the sacrifices made by the wounded and ill 
        members of the Armed Forces;
Whereas the Silver Star Service Banner has come to represent the members of the 
        Armed Forces and veterans who were wounded or became ill in combat in 
        the wars fought by the United States;
Whereas the Silver Star Families of America was formed to help the American 
        people remember the sacrifices made by the wounded and ill members of 
        the Armed Forces by designing and manufacturing Silver Star Service 
        Banners and Silver Star Flags for that purpose;
Whereas the sole mission of the Silver Star Families of America is to evoke 
        memories of the sacrifices of members and veterans of the Armed Forces 
        on behalf of the United States through the presence of a Silver Star 
        Service Banner in a window or a Silver Star Flag flying;
Whereas the sacrifices of members and veterans of the Armed Forces on behalf of 
        the United States should never be forgotten; and
Whereas May 1, 2010, is an appropriate date to designate as ``Silver Star 
        Service Banner Day'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate designates May 1, 2010, as ``Silver Star 
Service Banner Day'' and calls upon the people of the United States to 
observe the day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50781

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ISAIS MENDOZA-BARCENAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:16-CR-89-1

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Isaias1 MendozaBarcenas has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mendoza-Barcenas 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 

 

* 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.

1 Mendoza-Barcenas’s first name is sometimes misspelled as “Isais.”

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 18, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50781 Document: 00513956482 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2017
No. 16-50781

2

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. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-50781 Document: 00513956482 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2017
#### State v. Kurtti

110,942

07/27/2015

Denied

Unpublished
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 71 (Monday, April 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 18135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9512]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Epidemiology Program Office, Office of the Director, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Meeting

    Name: Guide to Community Preventive Services (GCPS) Task Force 
Meeting.
    Times and Dates: 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., April 28, 1997; 8:30 a.m.-5 
p.m., April 29, 1997.
    Place: Washington Plaza Hotel, 10 Thomas Circle, at Massachusetts 
Avenue and 14th Street, Washington, DC 20005.
    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available.
    Purpose: The mission of the Task Force is to develop and publish a 
Guide to Community Preventive Services, which is based on the best 
available scientific evidence and current expertise regarding essential 
public health services and what works in the delivery of those 
services.
    Matters to be Discussed: Agenda items include discussion on the 
organization and contents of the Guide; discussion on the methods to 
develop the Guide; progress reports on the development of Chapters on 
Preventing Vaccine Preventable Diseases and Preventing Motor Vehicle 
Injuries; brief progress reports on the development of chapters on 
tobacco, nutrition, physical activity, heart disease and stroke, family 
planning, environment, and violence; and discussion on field testing, 
implementing, and evaluating the Guide.
    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
    Contact person for additional information: Marguerite Pappaioanou, 
Chief, Community Preventive Service Guide Development Activity, 
Division of Prevention Research and Analytic Methods, Epidemiology 
Program Office, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, M/S D-01, Atlanta, Georgia 
30333. Persons wishing to reserve a space for this meeting should call 
404/639-4301 by close of business on April 21, 1997.

    Dated: April 4, 1997.
Carolyn Russell,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 97-9512 Filed 4-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
No. 12-342.

#### Allergan, Inc., et al. *v.*Watson Laboratories, Inc., et al.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 12-241.

#### R. I., Inc., dba Seating Solutions, et al. *v.*McCarthy et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
International Water Conference (IWC) 2011



# Discussion of: NORM Removal from Hydrofracturing Water

Paper: IWC 11-07

Authors: JAMES SILVA, HOPE MATI S, WILLIAM KOST EDT IV, AND VICKI WATKINS, GE Global Research Center

Discusser: JERRY L. PENLAND, Chest er Engineers Technology Group, Pittsburgh PA

This paper is a follow-up to a paper presented last year at IWC. In the previous paper the use of the ion exchange re sin RSC was proposed as being a method for removing radium from fr acturing fluids. It was discussed that using barium sulfate-radium coprecipitat ion was not cost effective when radium activity was greater that 400pCi/L.

This paper discusses the problems asso ciated with using RSC resin as the preferred pretreatment me thod for radium removal. The authors explain that

both barium and total dissolved solids affe ct the RSC capacity significantly.

Alternate adsorbents were apparently evalua ted, and only a general statement is made. The authors’ stated, based on a screening study.... “Barium sulfate and inorganic oxides had the best performance”.

I took the time to investigate radium re moval techniques developed in the nuclear industry, and analytical quantitativ e methods used for removing and concentrating radium from water for analysis.

Two documents that I would refer the authors to are:

1. Analytical methodology for the De termination of Radium Isotopes in Environmental Samples, I AEA #IAWA/AQ/19, Vienna 2010

2. Radiochemistry of Radium, National Academy of Science.

Both of these documents discuss in some detail the sorption of radium onto numerous inorganic materials. Barium sulf ate is the preferred sorbent. Methods

for removal of the radium from the sorbent are al so discussed with removal efficiencies being quantitative.Considering that barium is a significant naturally occurring element in fracturing fluid flowback, and is a preferred material for radium removal when precipitated with sulfate, why are other materials being pursued?

Can a partial barium precipitation be used to remove the radium in order to

minimize the amount of solids being generated?

In view of the fact that the RSC resin di d not work as previously proposed, I feel that the paper should have provided removal data on the barium and other inorganic oxide that were evaluated. No actual method for removal of NORM was

discussed.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.1  


 
  Certification of Chief Executive Officer    
    



        Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Wimm-Bill-Dann
Foods OJSC (the "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that: 



        (i)    the
accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the  "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended; and 


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



	Date: June 27, 2003	/s/  SERGEI A. PLASTININ      
 Sergei A. Plastinin

Chairman of the Management Board





        The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,
regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. 











QuickLinks


Certification of Chief Executive Officer
|                                                                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                               
|View History:                                                                                
|                                                                                             
|Vermont Natural Gas Price Sold to Electric Power Consumers  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                             
|                                                                                             
|Vermont Natural Gas Price Sold to Electric Power Consumers  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 3.16   | 2.90   | 3.23  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 4.91   | 4.83   | 3.86   | --     | --     | 8.93   | 7.82   | 7.72   | 9.14   | 5.66  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 5.73   | 5.26   | 4.14   | --     | --     | --     | --     | W      | W      | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | W      | W      | --     |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### State v. Taylor

106,188

08/29/13

Denied. .

Unpublished
|                                                                                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                             
|View History:                                                                              
|                                                                                           
|Maine Natural Gas Price Sold to Electric Power Consumers  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                           
|                                                                                           
|Maine Natural Gas Price Sold to Electric Power Consumers  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        | --     | 4.09   | 6.22   | 6.66   | W      | W      | W      | W      | W     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | W      | W      | W      | W      | W      | W      | W      | W      | W      | W     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | W      | W      | W      | W      |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 28, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00364

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.B., ET AL,

From the 73rd Judici al District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016PA00174

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant R.B. ’ s motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is

extended to August 2, 2017.

_____________________________ ____ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 28th day of July, 2017

.

__________________________________ _ Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
Exhibit 3.2


                            Valpey-Fisher Corporation

                  Amendment to By-Laws - effective May 8, 2003


                                   ARTICLE III
                                    DIRECTORS


     Section 1. Number, Qualification and Term. The property and business of the
Corporation shall be managed by its Board of Directors consisting of not less
than Five (5) nor more than Thirteen (13) persons. The number of directors
constituting the entire Board shall be Seven(7); provided, however, that from
time to time, such number may be decreased to not less than Five (5) or
increased to not more than Thirteen (13) persons by amendment of this section of
the By-laws by a majority of the entire Board of Directors. Directors need not
be stockholders. They shall be elected at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders and
each director shall be elected to serve until his successor shall be elected and
shall qualify.