alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

gonoJable Dan Y. Jaokson 

;tietriot Attorney 

Boustan , Texas 

r- 31s , Iats ,O f 

aturs? And 

n(i thereto. 

In part below 

you raquestsd two ralateli 

questions: 

oi the Wth 

Ohapter 109, Acts 

Bill 100. 880, 

iagular se*- 

.3iV81y to the United stat8S’ 

na granted by Iiouse Bill No. 53OV 

th8 QpiIiien tbt B. a. No. 580 does 

t, &WUlt8 Bi&& NO. 126 Of the same 

Certainly, there is no express 

Bill repealing the Senate Bill, end 

repeal by implioation is aat Parored. The aaoepted rule is 

Ql8arl.n +gpr?saed in 39 Texas &IX., Sec. 76, page 140, in 

the folXi+i'lng lan,:u&Ee: 
Honorable ;)8s %. Jaakson, page 2 

, "Acoording t:j numeroue pronounoemente OS the 

Texas courts, tho ropeai of atatutos by ImplIoatIan 

Is never favored or presumed. The two aots wIl1 persist unless the conflicting provi8ions are so anta&onistia and repugunant that both aaunot stand. :Hhere 

there is no express repsal, the preawdption is that 

In enactin a new law tke Legislature intended the 

old statute to remain in operation.* 

The multitude of authorities oited in the text 

support the rule. 

Another rule of even @eater fOXWe I8 thati 

where both aote are paaaod by the name seeuion of the 

legislature, It will be premumed that th8 1egIalature 

Intended for both aote to rtand. 70~ a statement ot the 

rule 8ee 39 Tex. SW., Seo. 98, pa&o 146, 8tated In the 

fOllOWbg 1kn@I438! 

” 

. The Legislature I8 mup:osad to be 

i governed ip'one l pIrIt and polio7 during a remrlon, 

I asd nothing ohort pf a direot repeal in expre88 term, 

or 8uOh lrreoonoIl(able repuguanoy a8 that both aOt8 

oannot stand together, will justlip a oourt In holding 

! 

an aOt 18 rep8ahd by another aat pa8aed at th8 came 

8888ion. . . .” 

I 

You are, therefore, adVi8ed that It 18 OUX Vi8U 

t!mt 3. B. No. 186 I8 not repealed by H. B. No. 580, 

Pa8sing now to the effeot of these two bIll8, 

we enolose herewith oopioa of two OpInIOn8 of th18 departskent 

t 

reaently releaeed, Opinion No. O-5290, pa8oing upon the oon8titUtiOlltiit.y of the88 two bills, and o&don No. O-5363, 

upon the liability of land held In the name of the United 

stat.88 ror State and oounty ad valoram tares. WS belie*8 

that these two opInIon8 afford a 8uffloIent guide ror your 

office withO\jt f'uNA8r CI~SWSS~OU. 

I 

FL : P %ECL slatant
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*STEPHEN C. MCCULLOUGH

*Glenn W.*Falk, special public defender, in support of the petition.

*James M. Ralls,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided April 27, 2005

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 88 Conn. App. 110 (AC 24832), is denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 1, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 21742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10764]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-827]


Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China: 
Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz at (202) 482-4474, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Time Limits

Statutory Time Limits

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination 
within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order 
for which a review is requested and a final determination within 120 
days after the date on which the preliminary determination is 
published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review 
within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 
Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary determination 
to a maximum of 365 days and for the final determination to 180 days 
(or 300 days if the Department does not extend the time limit for the 
preliminary determination) from the date of publication of the 
preliminary determination.

Background

    On January 26, 2000, the Department published a notice of 
initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
certain cased pencils from the People's Republic of China, covering the 
period December 1, 1998 through November 30, 1999 (65 FR 4228). On 
January 9, 2001, we published the preliminary results of review (66 FR 
1638). In our notice of preliminary results, we stated our intention to 
issue the final results of this review no later than May 9, 2001.

Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Review

    We determine that it is not practicable to complete the final 
results of this review within the original time limit. Therefore the 
Department is extending the time limit for completion of the final 
results until no later than July 8, 2001. See Decision Memorandum from 
Howard B. Smith to Thomas F. Futtner, dated concurrently with this 
notice, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the 
main Commerce building.
    This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act.

    Dated: April 23, 2001.
Thomas F. Futtner,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Group II.
[FR Doc. 01-10764 Filed 4-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 Certification Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
   (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/ William KeiperDated: August 9, 2007
    
    William KeiperChief Executive OfficerBy:
    /s/ Thomas LiguoriDated: August 9, 2007
    
    Thomas LiguoriSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Clear All

        07 July 2023    

                    Nuclear Propulsion School First – Three Royal Australian Navy Officers Graduate the Program                 
                GOOSE CREEK, S.C. – Three Royal Australian Navy (RAN) officers graduated from the United States Navy’s Nuclear Power School (NPS) today, marking a significant step in Australia’s goal to operate conventionally armed, nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs).            

        11 April 2023    

                    Naval Oceanography Presents at DEPS Conference 2023                 
                SAN ANTONIO, Texas - Naval Oceanography Officers attending the Naval Postgraduate School presented their thesis and participated in the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS) 2023 conference in San Antonio, Texas, April 3-6. The 2023 Annual DE S&T Symposium focused on sub-systems and component            

        07 October 2022    

                    Exploration of Wolfpack Tactics Earns Submariner Recognition in Operations Research                 
                Advancements in technology towards secure communication between submarines will significantly affect how they could operate in groups, or modern “Wolfpack Tactics.”  This award-winning analysis conducted by U.S. Navy Lt. Spencer Kitten, a recent graduate from the Naval Postgraduate            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
# C_2009209EN.01000401.xml

| 4.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/4

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 209/02

| Date of adoption of the decision | 3.7.2009 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | N 246/09 |
| Member State | United Kingdom |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Waterborne Freight Grant Scheme |
| Legal basis | Transport Act 2000, Part 5, Section 272;
  The Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2003;
  Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, Part 4, Section 71. |
| Type of measure | Direct non-refundable investment grant |
| Objective | Environmental protection |
| Form of aid | Aid scheme |
| Budget | Overall aid amount: GBP 50 million
  Annual expenditure: GBP 10 million
  For Scotland the same budget (GBP 8 million annually) covers both the MSRS and the WFG schemes |
| Intensity | 30 % |
| Duration (period) | 1.4.2010-31.3.2015 |
| Economic sectors | Maritime transport |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Department for Transport Freight and Logistics Division |
| Zone 2/14 |
| Great Minster House |
| 76 Marsham Street |
| London |
| SW1P 4DR |
| UNITED KINGDOM |

Date of adoption of the decision

3.7.2009

Reference number of State Aid

N 246/09

Member State

United Kingdom

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Waterborne Freight Grant Scheme

Legal basis

Transport Act 2000, Part 5, Section 272;

The Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2003;

Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, Part 4, Section 71.

Type of measure

Direct non-refundable investment grant

Objective

Environmental protection

Form of aid

Aid scheme

Budget

Overall aid amount: GBP 50 million

Annual expenditure: GBP 10 million

For Scotland the same budget (GBP 8 million annually) covers both the MSRS and the WFG schemes

Intensity

30 %

Duration (period)

1.4.2010-31.3.2015

Economic sectors

Maritime transport

Name and address of the granting authority

Department for Transport Freight and Logistics Division

Zone 2/14

Great Minster House

76 Marsham Street

London

SW1P 4DR

UNITED KINGDOM

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/index.htm

---
Case 1:07-cv-05343-AKH Document 17 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05343-AKH Document 17 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05343-AKH Document 17 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 3 of 3
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of ImageEntertainment, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscalyear ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeff M. Framer, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)                                  Basedon my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 
| Date:  |   | June 29, 2006 |   | /s/ JEFF M. FRAMER      |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |   |               |   | Jeff M. Framer          |   |   |
|   |   |               |   | Chief Financial Officer |   |   |

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3

                            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 Quarterly Report of On2 Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark J.
Meagher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section. 1350, as adopted pursuant 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
     aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Mark J. Meagher
Mark J. Meagher
Chief Financial Officer
On2 Technologies, Inc.
August 14, 2002
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6097

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus IYMAN FARIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:03-cr-00189-LMB; 1:06-cv-00132-LMB) Submitted: July 2, 2007 Decided: September 19, 2007 Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Iyman Faris, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Iyman Faris seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Faris has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Faris’s motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of Steven B. Fidelman, a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner.

Respondent, an attorney who was admitted to the Bar by this court on January 9, 1980 under the name of Steven Barry Fidelman, has submitted an affidavit dated October 9, 1986 in which he tenders his resignation as an attorney and counselor-at-law *(see,*22 NYCRR 691.9). Respondent was suspended from the practice of law pending the outcome of a disciplinary proceeding by order of this court dated June 3, 1986 [121 AD2d 415].

*724Respondent acknowledges that he is the subject of an investigation by the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts and that the following charges of professional misconduct are pending against him: (1) signing his client’s name on two settlement checks and converting the proceeds thereof to his own use; (2) failing to maintain contact with clients; failing to respond to the telephone and written inquiries of clients; closing his law office without advising clients, and abandoning his legal practice to the detriment of clients; (3) failing to cooperate with the Grievance Committee in its investigation of 19 different complaints; (4) neglecting 19 different legal matters entrusted to him; and (5) failing to return unearned fees in 14 different matters.

The respondent states that his resignation is freely and voluntarily rendered; that he is not being subjected to coercion or duress; and that he is fully aware of the implications of submitting his resignation. Respondent further acknowledges that if charges were predicated upon the misconduct outlined above, he could not successfully defend himself on the merits against such charges.

Under the circumstances herein, the respondent’s resignation as a member of the Bar is accepted and directed to be filed; and it is ordered that respondent be disbarred and his name struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective forthwith. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Bracken, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 8, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11561]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01-01-060]


Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Connecticut River, CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a 
temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations for the 
Route 82 Bridge, mile 16.8, across the Connecticut River at East 
Haddam, Connecticut. This deviation from the regulations authorizes the 
bridge owner to keep the bridge in the closed position from 6 p.m. on 
May 21, 2001 through 6 a.m. on May 22, 2001. This deviation is 
necessary in order to facilitate necessary repairs at the bridge.

DATE: This deviation is effective from May 21, 2001, through May 22, 
2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Schmied, Project Officer, First 
Coast Guard District, at (212) 668-7195.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Route 82 Bridge, at mile 16.8, across 
the Connecticut River has a vertical clearance in the closed position 
of 22 feet at mean high water and 25 feet at mean low water. The 
existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 
117.205(c).
    The owner of the bridge, Connecticut Department of Transportation, 
requested a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operating 
regulations to facilitate the replacement of the pulley system for the 
submarine cables at the bridge. The bridge can not open for vessel 
traffic during this repair work.
    This deviation to the operating regulations authorizes the owner of 
the Route 82 Bridge to keep the bridge in the closed position from 6 
p.m. on May 21, 2001 through 6 a.m. on May 22, 2001.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed 
with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as 
soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is 
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: April 27, 2001.
G.N. Naccara,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 01-11561 Filed 5-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
Clear All

        12 March 2024    

                    Commander, U.S. Sixth Fleet visits USS Bulkeley (DDG 84)                 
                Vice Adm. Thomas Ishee, commander, U.S. 6th Fleet, embarked the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Bulkeley (DDG 84) at Naval Station Rota, Spain to meet with the crew and recognize their accomplishments at the conclusion of their four month patrol, Mar. 8, 2024.            

        26 February 2024    

                    USS Bulkeley (DDG 84) completes patrol in U.S. 6th Fleet area of operations                 
                The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Bulkeley (DDG 84) returned to Naval Station Rota, Spain, following the completion of its Forward-Deployed Naval Forces (FDNF) patrol in the U.S. 6th Fleet area of operations, July 26.             

        20 March 2023    

                    USS Bulkeley (DDG 84) arrives in Sal Island, Cabo Verde for African Maritime Forces Summit                  
                The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Bulkeley (DDG 84) arrived in Sal Island, Cabo Verde for a scheduled port visit, March 19, 2023.             

        17 August 2022    

                    USS Bulkeley (DDG 84), latest FDNF-E ship, arrives in new homeport Rota, Spain                 
                NAVAL STATION ROTA, Spain - The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Bulkeley (DDG 84) arrived in its new homeport, Naval Station Rota, Spain, as the U.S. Navy’s last Forward Deployed Naval Forces–Europe (FDNF-E) destroyer scheduled to shift its homeport to Rota, Spain, Aug. 17, 2022.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
#### FOSTER, Respondent, v. NEW YORK EL. R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

June 15, 1894.)

Action by Thomas K. Foster against the New York Elevated Railroad Company. J. T. Davies, for appellant. W. G. Peck-ham, for respondent

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 4-3 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 1 of 1
(82 South. 894)

#### Ex parte KING.

(8 Div. 199.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 26, 1919.)

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

William Stell, of Russellville, for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Petition of T. B. King for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment of said court rendered in the case of T. B. King v. Dearing-Orman Mercantile Co., 81 South. 861. Writ denied.