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

DSCPH 4155.2 

Monograph No. BD7 

04 August 1986 

NSN: 8920-00-168-3296

Item: Cookie Mix, Dry, Chocolate (Type I) 

Document: MIL-C-43205G, Cookie Mix, Dry 

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: NA Component Classification: Secondary 

Estimated Shelf Life: 24 months 80°F 

Item Characteristics

Appearance: 

Dry bakery mix shall be a free flowing mix free from lumps that do not fall apart under 

light finger pressure. Uniform light dusty brown color. 

Prepared chocolate cookies shall be a uniform chocolate brown color. 

Odor: Prepared chocolate cookies shall have a sweet baked chocolate odor. 

Flavor: Prepared chocolate cookies shall have a sweet baked chocolate flavor. 

Texture: Dry mix shall be free flowing. 

Prepared cookies shall be tender and crisp and show no evidence of lumps or peaks. 

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance: 

Dry mix may darken in color and/or contain lumps that do not fall apart under light 

finger pressure. 

Prepared product may have lumps or peaks. 

Odor: Rancid, stale, oxidized, bitter, soapy, scorched, or other objectionable odors. 

Flavor: Rancid, stale, oxidized, bitter, soapy, scorched, or other objectionable flavors. 

Texture: 

Cookie mix may clump excessively, and not readily dissolve upon mixing or baking. 

Upon mixing the product may not readily attain a thick cookie batter consistency. 

Prepared cookies may have undissolved lumps or peaks. 

Unique Examination/Test Procedures

Prepare as directed on label.
# C_2017066EN.01003401.xml

| 2.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 66/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 66/34

---

Corrigendum to the withdrawal of the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Registered Traveller Programme

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 422 of 17 November 2016
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 422 of 17 November 2016

(2017/C 66/14)

On page 2, in the table:

for:

for:

‘Foreign Affairs & Security Policy’,

read:

read:

‘Migration, Home Affairs & Citizenship’.

---
#### Ogden M. Hoagland, *Appellant,*v. George R. Williams, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed February 22, 1926.

*Olliphant & Olliphant,*for Appellant;

*L. C. Johnson*and *Wilson & Swearingen, for Appellee.*

Per Curiam.

— This appeal is from an order overruling á demurrer to a bill of complaint seeking specific performance of an alleged contract to sell land described as "situated between Lakes Cannon and Mirror, which you purchased from Mrs. Inman. ’ ’ The demurrer should have been sustained. See Rhode v. Gallet, 70 Fla. 536, 70 South. *299Rep. 471; Swisher v. Conrad, 76 Fla. 644, 80 South. Rep. 564; Smith & Waldron filed January, 1926.

Reversed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Brown, C. J., and Ellis, J., concur in the Opinion.
#### J. H. Roberts, *Appellant,*v. Pensacola & Georgia Railroad Company, *et al., Appellees.*

Division B.

Decision Filed May 3, 1926.

*J. B. Hodges,*for Appellant;

*John F. Harrell*and *Fleming, Hamilton, Diver, Lichliter <& Fleming,*as Amici Curiae.

Per Curiam.

— The order appealed from herein is reversed on the authority of McDaniel v. McElvy, this day filed.

All concur.
No. 11-7234.

#### John Miles Foster, Petitioner v. Ralph Kemp, Warden.

565 U.S. 1153, 132 S. Ct. 1099,

181 L. Ed. 2d 973,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 695.

January 17, 2012.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
No. 11-7448.

#### Christine K. Cornelius, Petitioner v. J. C. Michael Shea.

565 U.S. 1166, 132 S. Ct. 1112,

181 L. Ed. 2d 994,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 841.

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts denied.

*995Same case below, 79 Mass. App. 1113, 945 N.E.2d 437.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 12-356V

Filed: November 14, 2013

Not for Publication

*************************************

DOUGLAS FINLAY and CAMMIE *

FINLAY, on Behalf of Their Minor *

Daughter, GINA L. FINLAY, *

*

 Petitioners, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision based on

 * stipulation of fact

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Carl D. Campbell, III, Alexandria, LA, for petitioners.

Gordon E. Shemin, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On November 14, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an 

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case. 

In accordance with the General Order #9 requirement, petitioners filed a statement 

asserting that they did not incur any costs in pursuit of their petition.

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made 

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is 

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to redact such information prior to the document=s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, 

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall 

redact such material from public access.
2

Petitioners submitted their request for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent. During 

informal discussions, respondent raised objections to certain aspects of petitioners’ application. 

Based on these objections, petitioners amend their application for attorneys’ fees and costs to 

$15,117.27. Respondent does not object to this amount. The undersigned finds this amount to 

be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $15,117.27, representing reimbursement for 

attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner

and Neblett, Beard & Arsenault in the amount of $15,117.27.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2013 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

 

2

Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ROBERT EARL EALY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-2568

[October 12, 2017]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800(a) motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Cynthia L. Cox, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 312008CF000054A.

Robert E. Ealy, Lowell, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 11-7860.

#### Douglas Hersom, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1171, 132 S. Ct. 1128,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1005,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 673.

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

Same case below, 657 F.3d 77.
No. 09-8559.

#### Christopher W. Dallum, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 960, 130 S. Ct. 1562,

176 L. Ed. 2d 148,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1352.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
**Exhibit
      32**





**Certification
      by the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to
      18 U.
      S. C. Section 1350, as**


**Adopted
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002**





Pursuant
      to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, Barbara Duncan, hereby certify that, to the
      best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of DOV
      Pharmaceutical, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in
      the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
      results of operations of DOV Pharmaceutical, Inc.





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





/s/
                  Barbara DuncanBarbara
                  DuncanChief
                  Executive Officer and Principal Financial OfficerAugust
                  8, 2007




This
      certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
      extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Such
      certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
      under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act,
      except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by
      reference.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 29, 2021

No. 04-19-00704-CR

Ex parte James Burke JARREAU

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5552

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice1

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

ORDER

 The Court has considered appellant’s motion for en banc reconsideration and appellee’s 

response2to the motion. Appellant’s motion for en banc reconsideration is DENIED.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

1Dissenting to denial without opinion.

2As mentioned in appellee’s response, a prior opinion from this Court, Sanchez-Vasquez v. State, 610 S.W.3d 36

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2020, no pet.), did not address Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), and its 

effect on facial vagueness challenges to criminal statutes. We welcome further guidance on this issue from the Texas 

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

court on this 29th day of April, 2021.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
ex1034.htm


Exhibit 10.34


 


 


 


Amendment to Employment Agreement







Reference is made to the Employment Agreement entered into between New Energy Systems Group and Weihe Yu on November 1, 2009 (“Employment Agreement”). Pursuant to negotiation, the parties agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:








	
1.  

	
Weihe Yu Shall keep serving as the Company’s Chairman of the Board of Directors and CEO;








	
2.  

	
Weihe Yu’s salary shall be changed from RMB15,000 per month to RMB120,000 per month;








	
3.  

	
The rest of the benefits shall remain the same.







 


 




	 	New Energy System Group	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
By: 

	/s/ Weihe Yu	 
	 	 	September 1, 2011
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection
with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2017 (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying
with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350
of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



I, Robert W. O’Hare, certify that:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: April 25, 2018 |  | By: | /s/ Robert W. O’Hare   
|-------------------- |  | --- | -----------------------
|                     |  |     | Robert W. O’Hare       
|                     |  |     | Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (UNAUDITED) AS OF APRIL 1, 2000 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED) FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED APRIL 1,2000 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED
IN THE FORM 10-K FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 1, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-01-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             714
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,671
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,500
<INVENTORY>                                     35,863
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,062
<PP&E>                                          39,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,147
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 118,167
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           66,917
<BONDS>                                         75,813
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           33,650
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                    (55,842)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   118,167
<SALES>                                         42,528
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,528
<CGS>                                           23,581
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,581
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (51)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 9,781
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,597
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,132)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,132)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,132)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (4.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.80)


</TABLE>
≥95% (2 awardees)

75% - 94% (16 awardees)

50% - 74% (26 awardees)

25% - 49% (7 awardees)

<25% (1 awardee)

No IIS (1 awardee)

No data (3 awardees)

Percentage of adolescents aged 11 – 17 years participating in an immunization 

information system -- United States, five cities§, and D.C., 2013

National Participation: 64 % (excluding Territories)

Source: CY2013 IISAR

§ Chicago, IL; Houston, TX; New York City, NY; Philadelphia, PA; San Antonio, TX.
No. 10-1018.

#### Steve A. Filarsky, Petitioner v. Nicholas B. Delia.

565 U.S. 1103, 132 S. Ct. 994,

181 L. Ed. 2d 725,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 3.

January 6, 2012.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.
# C_2016233EN.01000601.xml

| 28.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 233/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 233/6

---

EU Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to the rapid deployment of broadband networks: acceptance of the proposed appropriate measures pursuant to Article 108(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by all Member States

(2016/C 233/02)

In paragraphs 89-90 of the EU Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to the rapid deployment of broadband networks (1), the Commission proposed to Member States, on the basis of Article 108(1) TFEU, to take appropriate measures and amend, where necessary, their existing aid schemes in order to bring them into line with the provisions of these Guidelines within 12 months after their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. Member States were requested to confirm their acceptance of the proposed appropriate measures within 2 months from the date of publication of the Guidelines in the Official Journal of the European Union.

1

Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

Pursuant to Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (2), the Commission recorded the unconditional and explicit agreement to the appropriate measures by all Member States that had existing schemes in place at the time of the adoption of the EU Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to the rapid deployment of broadband networks.

2

---

(1)  EU Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to the rapid deployment of broadband networks (OJ C 25, 26.1.2013, p. 1).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p. 9) (which replaces as of 14 October 2015 Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1) as amended).

2

---
No. 09-8023.

#### Roberto Baez, Petitioner v. Robert J. James, Judge, Superior Court of Georgia, Douglas County.

559 U.S. 948, 130 S. Ct. 1526,

176 L. Ed. 2d 128,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1202,

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
Resolving Issues with Orders webinar

Email this event to me @

Invalid Email Address!Invalid Email Address!

Start Date/Time:

Tuesday, September 24, 2024 2:00 PM

End Date/Time:

Tuesday, September 24, 2024 3:00 PM

Recurring Event:

One time event

Importance:

Normal Priority

Location:

Virtual/Online

Description:

Resolving Issues with Orders

This seminar is a course that teaches vendors how to start doing business with DLA. Vendors learn how to find open solicitations, how to submit a quote through the DLA Internet Bid Board System (DIBBS), the procedures for viewing/downloading drawings, and how to use Invoicing, Receipt, Acceptance and Property Transfer (iRAPT) to get paid. There are also many other relevant topics of discussion. All Sessions are free and held virtually.

Training is provided by DLA Land and Maritime in Columbus, OH, but benefits all DLA suppliers.

Advance registration is required. Make reservations at: https://www.zoomgov.com/meeting/register/vJIsd-muqjwvHbxG7WyFJR9wYLio4005NzM

 

Enrolled Users:

Alandra Jones

                - Return
                - 
                - Export
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 479 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 479

 To replace a Coastal Barrier Resources System map relating to Coastal 
 Barrier Resources System Grayton Beach Unit FL-95P in Walton County, 
                                Florida.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 2005

    Mr. Miller of Florida (for himself and Mr. Boyd) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To replace a Coastal Barrier Resources System map relating to Coastal 
 Barrier Resources System Grayton Beach Unit FL-95P in Walton County, 
                                Florida.

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

SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP RELATING 
              TO GRAYTON BEACH UNIT FL-95P IN WALTON COUNTY, FLORIDA.

    (a) In General.--The map described in subsection (b) relating to 
the Coastal Barrier Resources System unit Grayton Beach Unit FL-95P, 
located in Walton County, Florida, as included in the set of maps 
entitled ``Coastal Barrier Resources System'' referred to in section 
4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)), is 
hereby replaced by another map relating to that unit entitled ``___'' 
and dated ``____''.
    (b) Replaced Map Described.--The map replaced under subsection (a) 
is subtitled ``COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM GRAYTON BEACH UNIT FL-
95P DRAPER LAKE UNIT FL-96'' and dated October 24, 1990.
    (c) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall keep the 
maps referred to in subsections (a) on file and available for 
inspection in accordance with the provisions of section 4(b) of the 
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)).
                                 <all>
```
Montana Ninth Judicial District Court. County of Toole.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- ANTHONY MERLE COMBS, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-14-007

DECISION

On March 24, 2016, Defendant was revoked in two causes, DC-12-020 (Driving Under the Influence) and DC-14-007 (Criminal Endangerment) and was sentenced to the Department of Corrections for two (2) years with a recommendation for placement in the Connections Corrections Program. Defendant was granted credit for 23 days served. All previous conditions of probation were re-imposed. The Defendant was ordered to pay $80 for fees and surcharges; the cost of the Public Defender was waived.

On August 4, 2016, the Defendant’s Application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court *67(hereafter “the Division”).

Done in open Court this 4th day of August, 2016.

DATED this 24th day of August, 2016.

The Defendant appeared by Vision Net from the Lewis and Clark County Courthouse and was represented by Peter Ohman of the Office of the State Public Defender. The State was not represented.

Before hearing the Application, the Defendant was advised that the Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The Defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Division. The Defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 12, Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana, provides that, “The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the sentence is AFFIRMED.

Hon. Brenda Gilbert, Chairperson, Hon. Kathy Seeley, Member and Hon. Brad Newman, Member.