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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3652 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3652

   To allow acceleration certificates awarded under the Patents for 
                  Humanity Program to be transferable.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 4, 2012

 Mr. Leahy (for himself and Mr. Coons) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To allow acceleration certificates awarded under the Patents for 
                  Humanity Program to be transferable.

    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 ``Patents for Humanity Program 
Improvement Act of 2012''.

SEC. 2. TRANSFERABILITY OF ACCELERATION CERTIFICATES.

    (a) In General.--A holder of an acceleration certificate issued 
pursuant to the Patents for Humanity Program (established in the notice 
entitled ``Humanitarian Awards Pilot Program'', published at 77 Fed. 
Reg. 6544 (February 8, 2012)), or any successor thereto, of the United 
States Patent and Trademark Office, may transfer (including by sale) 
the entitlement to such acceleration certificate to another person.
    (b) Requirement.--An acceleration certificate transferred under 
subsection (a) shall be subject to any other applicable limitations 
under the notice entitled ``Humanitarian Awards Pilot Program'', 
published at 77 Fed. Reg. 6544 (February 8, 2012), or any successor 
thereto.
                                 <all>
```
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Magnitudes and locations of the 1811-1812 New Madrid, Missouri, and the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquakes      

      January 1, 2004    

We estimate locations and moment magnitudes **M** and their uncertainties for the three largest events in the 1811–1812 sequence near New Madrid, Missouri, and for the 1 September 1886 event near Charleston, South Carolina. The intensity magnitude MI, our preferred estimate of **M**, is 7.6 for the 16 December 1811 event that occurred in the New Madrid seismic zone (NMSZ) on the Bootheel lineament or on the Blytheville seismic zone. MI is 7.5 for the 23 January 1812 event for a location on the New Madrid north zone of the NMSZ and 7.8 for the 7 February 1812 event that occurred on the Reelfoot blind thrust of the NMSZ. Our preferred locations for these events are located on those NMSZ segments preferred by Johnston and Schweig (1996). Our estimates of **M** are 0.1–0.4 **M** units less than those of Johnston (1996b) and 0.3–0.5 **M** units greater than those of Hough et al. (2000). MI is 6.9 for the 1 September 1886 event for a location at the Summerville–Middleton Place cluster of recent small earthquakes located about 30 km northwest of Charleston.

## Citation Information

### Study Area

### Contact

####             Water Resources Mission Area - Headquarters        

USGS Headquarters12201 Sunrise Valley DriveReston, VA20192United States

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - missouri
                  -  South Carolina

View All **
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Interpretations of the SJ-6 seismic reflection/refraction profile, South Central California, USA      

      January 1, 1987    

View Document

No abstract available.

## Citation Information
Exhibit 99.2

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 Spectrum Bancorporation, Inc ("Spectrum") on Form 10K for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James R. Clark, Chief Financial Officer of Spectrum, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| |  |                                                         
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/JAMES R. CLARKJames R. Clark,
Chief Financial Officer

---

QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 110 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 30293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-10608]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 19-19939-AJC Doc 39 Filed 11/15/19 Page 1 of 3
Case 19-19939-AJC Doc 39 Filed 11/15/19 Page 2 of 3
Case 19-19939-AJC Doc 39 Filed 11/15/19 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3624 Referred in House (RFH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3624

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 25, 2012

     Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend section 31311 of title 49, United States Code, to permit 
 States to issue commercial driver's licenses to members of the Armed 
           Forces whose duty station is located in the State.

    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 ``Military Commercial Driver's License 
Act of 2012''.

SEC. 2. DOMICILE REQUIREMENT FOR COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE.

    Section 31311(a)(12) of title 49, United States Code, is amended to 
read as follows:
            ``(12)(A) Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C), 
        the State may issue a commercial driver's license only to an 
        individual who operates or will operate a commercial motor 
        vehicle and is domiciled in the State.
            ``(B) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, the 
        State may issue a commercial driver's license to an individual 
        who--
                    ``(i) operates or will operate a commercial motor 
                vehicle; and
                    ``(ii) is not domiciled in a State that issues 
                commercial driver's licenses.
            ``(C) The State may issue a commercial driver's license to 
        an individual who--
                    ``(i) operates or will operate a commercial motor 
                vehicle;
                    ``(ii) is a member of the active duty military, 
                military reserves, National Guard, active duty United 
                States Coast Guard, or Coast Guard Auxiliary; and
                    ``(iii) is not domiciled in the State, but whose 
                temporary or permanent duty station is located in the 
                State.''.

            Passed the Senate September 22 (legislative day, September 
      21), 2012.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Observed impacts of duration and seasonality of atmospheric-river landfalls on soil moisture and runoff in coastal northern California      

      July 30, 2013    

This study is motivated by diverse needs for better forecasts of extreme precipitation and floods. It is enabled by unique hourly observations collected over six years near California’s Russian River and by recent advances in the science of atmospheric rivers (ARs). This study fills key gaps limiting the prediction of ARs and, especially, their impacts by quantifying the duration of AR conditions and the role of duration in modulating hydrometeorological impacts. Precursor soil moisture conditions and their relationship to streamflow are also shown. On the basis of 91 well-observed events during 2004-10, the study shows that the passage of ARs over a coastal site lasted 20 h on average and that 12% of the AR events exceeded 30 h. Differences in storm-total water vapor transport directed up the mountain slope contribute 74% of the variance in storm-total rainfall across the events and 61% of the variance in storm-total runoff volume. ARs with double the composite mean duration produced nearly 6 times greater peak streamflow and more than 7 times the storm-total runoff volume. When precursor soil moisture was less than 20%, even heavy rainfall did not lead to significant streamflow. Predicting which AR events are likely to produce extreme impacts on precipitation and runoff requires accurate prediction of AR duration at landfall and observations of precursor soil moisture conditions.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

## Related Content

### Study Area

### Contact

####             Water Resources Mission Area - Headquarters        

USGS Headquarters12201 Sunrise Valley DriveReston, VA20192United States

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - california

View All **
Demetrius WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1925

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains editorial corrections of previously

published Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule,

and Notice documents. These corrections are

prepared by the Office of the Federal

Register. Agency prepared corrections are

issued as signed documents and appear in

the appropriate document categories

elsewhere in the issue.

Corrections Federal Register

6595

Vol. 60, No. 22

Thursday, February 2, 1995

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Parts 211 and 353

RIN 3206–AG18

Federal Staffing Provisions Supporting

Sunset of the Federal Personnel

Manual

Correction

In rule document 95–830 beginning

on page 3055 in the issue of Friday,

January 13, 1995, make the following

corrections:

§ 211.102 [Corrected]

1. On page 3056, in the third column,

in § 211.102(a)(3), in the second line,

‘‘1995’’ should read ‘‘1955’’.

§ 353.103 [Corrected]

2. On page 3064, in the second

column, in § 353.103(a)(2), in the first

line, ‘‘with’’ should read ‘‘without’’.

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 430

RIN 3206-AG34

Performance Management

Correction

In proposed rule document 95–2109

beginning on page 5542 in the issue of

Friday, January 27, 1995, make the

following corrections:

On page 5548, in the table:

1. In the second column, in the fourth

line, ‘‘§ 430.209(3)’’ should read

‘‘§ 430.209(e)’’.

2. In the same column, in the sixth

line, ‘‘§ 430.207(c)()’’ should read

‘‘§ 430.207(c)(2)’’

3. In the 3rd column, in the 29th line

from the bottom, ‘‘requirements’’ should

read ‘‘requirement’’.

4. In the same column, in the 23rd

line from the bottom, ‘‘greater’’ was

misspelled.

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-35247; International Series

Release No. 774 File No. SR-CBOE-95-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by

the Chicago Board Options Exchange,

Inc. Relating to the Listing of Warrants

on the Duetscher Aktien Index (‘‘DAX

Index’’)

Correction

In notice document 95–1979

beginning on page 5233 in the issue of

Thursday, January 26, 1995, make the

following correction:

On page 5235, in the first column,

insert the following before the FR Doc.

line:

Margaret McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
STATE of Louisiana IN the INTEREST OF E.M.

NO. 2018-CK-1097

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 16, 2018

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
Exhibit 32.2


                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  Invvision  Capital,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the year ending  December  31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Kevin L.  Dahlberg,  Senior Vice  President - Finance of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.

By:  /s/ Kevin L. Dahlberg
--------------------------
Kevin L. Dahlberg
Senior Vice President - Finance
April 14, 2004

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  provided to  Invvision  Capital,  Inc.  and will be retained by  Invvision
Capital,  Inc., and furnished to the  Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

IN RE:

SEVEN STARS ON THE HUDSON CASE NO: 19-17544-SMG

CORPORATION, d/b/a ROCKIN’JUMP

Debtor,

_______________________________________/

SEVEN STARS ON THE HUDSON ADVERSARY NO.: 19-01230-SMG

CORPORATION, d/b/a ROCKIN’JUMP

Plaintiff,

v.

MDG POWERLINE HOLDINGS, LLC, 

and XBK MANAGEMENT LLC, d/b/a

XTREME ACTION PARK,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

Scott M. Grossman, Judge

_____________________________________________________________________________ United States Bankruptcy Court

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on May 2, 2022.

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 312 Filed 05/03/22 Page 1 of 3
FINAL JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT MDG POWERLINE HOLDINGS, LLC’S 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

Pursuant to the Court’s Order [ECF No. 304] granting in part Defendant MDG Powerline 

Holdings, LLC’s Verified Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Nontaxable Costs [ECF No. 258] and 

its Bill of Taxable Costs [ECF No. 270], Final Judgment is entered by this Court in favor of 

Defendant MDG Powerline Holdings, LLC, and against Plaintiff Seven Stars on the Hudson 

Corporation as follows:

 IT IS ADJUDGED that MDG POWERLINE HOLDINGS, LLC, at the address of 18001 

Collins Avenue, 31st Floor, Sunny Isles Beach, Florida 33160, shall recover from SEVEN STARS 

ON THE HUDSON CORPORATION, at the address of 2108 N.E. 63rd Street, Fort Lauderdale, 

Florida 33308, the sum of $248,589.65, that shall bear interest in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §

1961 from the date of this Judgment until the date this amount is paid, for which let execution 

issue forthwith.

It is FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Bankruptcy Procedure 7069, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2) and Florida Rule of Civil 

Procedure 1.560(c), Plaintiff-Debtor SEVEN STARS ON THE HUDSON CORPORATION shall 

complete, under oath, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure Form 1.977 (Fact Information Sheet), 

including all required attachments, and serve it on Defendants within forty-five days (45) days 

from the date of this Final Judgment, unless this Final Judgment is satisfied or post-judgment 

discovery is stayed.

###

Submitted By:

Jeffrey I. Snyder

Florida Bar No. 021281

BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 312 Filed 05/03/22 Page 2 of 3
1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2300 

Miami, Florida 33134 

Telephone: (305) 374-7580 

Facsimile: (305) 351-2253

E-mail: jsnyder@bilzin.com

Copies furnished to: 

Jeffrey I. Snyder, Esq. 

[Attorney Ssnyder is hereby directed to serve a copy of this Order upon all parties in interest and 

to file a certificate of service of same.] 

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 312 Filed 05/03/22 Page 3 of 3
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

In Re: PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER 13

Alipio Rensol Rodriguez Garcia, CASE NO.: 19-21264-BKC-LMI

 Debtor. /

ORDER CONTINUING DEBTOR’S MOTION TO VALUE AND 

DETERMINE SECURED STATUS OF LIEN OF 

THE INTERNATIONAL CONDOMINIUM . ON REAL PROPERTY (DE #23)

THIS CASE came to be heard on December 3, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. on Debtor’s Motion to Value 

and Determine Secured Status of Lien Of The International Condominium on Real Property (Value of 

Collateral: $106,000) [DE # 23] and based on the record it is ordered:

ORDERED as follows: 

1. That Motion to Value is continued to January 7, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in the United States 

Bankruptcy Court, C. Clyde Atkins United States Courthouse, 301 N. Miami Avenue, Miami, 

FL 33128. 

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on December 11, 2019.

Laurel M. Isicoff

Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge

_____________________________________________________________________________

Case 19-21264-LMI Doc 41 Filed 12/12/19 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. That the Debtor will provide the Creditor a copy of their appraisal or valuation 

support within 7 days after the date of the first hearing set on this matter unless the documentation 

was attached to the motion or served on the Creditor prior to the first hearing.

3. That the Debtor will make the collateral available for inspection and appraisal to the 

Creditor within 21 days of the date of the first hearing set on this matter at a mutually agreed upon 

time and date.

4. The Creditor will provide a copy of its appraisal to the Debtor or the attorney for the 

Debtor at least 7 days prior to the continued hearing.

5. Failure to comply with this order, including refusing to provide access to the collateral

or timely providing an appraisal, may result in the limiting or striking of evidence and testimony at 

the valuation hearing; the Court may limit the evidence at trial to the information exchanged prior to 

the second hearing. Alternatively, the Court may rule on valuation at the continued hearing rather 

than setting a separate evidentiary proceeding.

6. If either party wishes to raise any legal issue regarding the motion to value, they shall

file a notice or objection with a brief summary of the issue at least 2 business days prior to the

continued hearing unless a written objection to the motion to value or objection to confirmation

setting forth the legal issue is already on docket.

###

Submitted By:

Law Offices of Patrick L. Cordero, P.A.

Counsel for the Debtor

7333 Coral Way 

Miami, FL 33155

(305) 445-4855

(305) 445-9483

 /s/ (FILED CM/ECF) 

PATRICK L. CORDERO, ESQ

FL Bar No. 801992

Attorney Patrick L. Cordero, Esq. is directed to serve a conformed copy of this Order on all interested 

parties immediately upon receipt hereof and to file a certificate of service.

Case 19-21264-LMI Doc 41 Filed 12/12/19 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2 Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code  I, Michael J. Marx, the Chief Financial Officer of Nano Mask, Inc. (Nano Mask), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) the accompanying Form 10-K of Nano Mask for the year ended December 30, 2007 (the Form 10-K) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nano Mask.   /s/ Michael J. Marx Michael J. Marx Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)  June 30, 2011
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

AUG 27 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JOSE DIAZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

HANK GALETKA, Warden,

Utah State Prison,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 97-4158

(D.C. No. 97-CV-357)

(D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON , BARRETT , and TACHA , Circuit Judges.

After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The

case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

On May 7, 1997, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking relief from a 1992 Utah state court

conviction. The magistrate judge to whom the federal petition was referred

recommended that it be dismissed for failure to comply with the one-year

limitation period provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), which was enacted as part

of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Petitioner filed

objections to the recommendation, raising several constitutional challenges to the

application of the limitations period. Petitioner also argued that commencement

of the limitations period should be delayed pursuant to § 2244(d)(1)(B) because

an unconstitutional state-created impediment prevented him from filing his habeas

petition. The district court rejected petitioner’s constitutional challenges to the

statute of limitations, but did not directly address his argument about the delayed

commencement of the limitations period. The court dismissed the action as

untimely.

Before petitioner can proceed on appeal, he must obtain a certificate of

appealability from this court, which requires “a substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Our review of this matter was

made more difficult by the district court’s failure to address petitioner’s argument

about the commencement date of the limitations period under § 2244(d)(1)(B). 

Nonetheless, our thorough review of the record and petitioner’s appellate brief
-3-

leads us to conclude that petitioner has not shown the district court’s disposition

of his habeas petition to be debatable, reasonably subject to a different outcome

on appeal, or otherwise deserving of further proceedings. See Gallagher v.

Hannigan , 24 F.3d 68, 68 (10th Cir. 1994) (discussing how to make substantial

showing of denial of constitutional right).

Therefore, a certificate of appealability is DENIED, and the appeal is

DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Stephen H. Anderson

Circuit Judge
EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                    ------------



             INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM'S CONSENT


         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 pertaining to the Stock Option Plan, as amended, of
Greystone Logistics, Inc. and in the related Prospectus, by incorporation by
reference of the amended annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Greystone Logistics,
Inc. for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2005, of our report dated August 30,
2005. We also consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts"
in the related Prospectus.



                                         MURRELL, HALL, MCINTOSH & CO., PLLP


                                         /s/ Murrell, Hall, Mcintosh & Co., PLLP


Norman, Oklahoma
January 10, 2006
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 24-0179 JAMES J. MORRISON, JR.

Petitioner, v. MARK JOHNSON, WARDEN, Butte SilverBowDetention Facility, GRANT OF'MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FILING FEE Respondent. 

### Motion to proceed without payment ofthe filing fee in this matter is GRANTED. DATED March 25, 2024.
BOWEN GREENWOOD Clerk ofthe Supreme Court 03/25/2024

Case Number: OP 24-0179