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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4951 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4951

         To extend the duty suspension on Titanium Mononitride.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 15, 2008

 Mr. David Davis of Tennessee introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To extend the duty suspension on Titanium Mononitride.

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

SECTION 1. TITANIUM MONONITRIDE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.80 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Titanium mononitride) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the date that is 15 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
HomeOcean Facts

# What are the horse latitudes?

## The horse latitudes are subtropical regions known for calm winds and little precipitation.

The horse latitudes are regions located at about 30 degrees north and south of the equator. These latitudes are characterized by calm winds and little precipitation.

The horse latitudes are located at about 30 degrees north and south of the equator. It is common in this region of the subtropics for winds to diverge and either flow toward the poles (known as the prevailing westerlies) or toward the equator (known as the trade winds). These diverging winds are the result of an area of high pressure, which is characterized by calm winds, sunny skies, and little or no precipitation. 

According to legend, the term comes from ships sailing to the New World that would often become stalled for days or even weeks when they encountered areas of high pressure and calm winds. Many of these ships carried horses to the Americas as part of their cargo. Unable to sail and resupply due to lack of wind, crews often ran out of drinking water. To conserve scarce water, sailors on these ships would sometimes throw the horses they were transporting overboard. Thus, the phrase 'horse latitudes' was born.

###### Get **Social**

###### More **Information**

          -  Global Circulations (National Weather Service)

Did you know?

The northern and southern Horse Latitudes are sometimes referred to as the "calms of Cancer" and the '"calms of Capricorn," respectively. 

**Last updated:**   01/18/24**Author:** NOAAHow to cite this article

Contact Us

            - Provide Feedback 
            -  Contact Us 
            -  Report an error 

##### Science. Service.Stewardship.

###### 						About NOS 					

            - About Us
            - NOS Program Offices
            - Media Inquiries
            - Website Acknowledgements

###### 						Resources 					

            - Site Index
            - Disclaimer
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Accessibility

###### 						More Resources 					

            - Information Quality
            - Privacy Policy
            - NOS For Employees
            - USA.gov

          -  National Ocean Service
          -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          -  Department of Commerce

##### 						Social 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATIONS
I, Edward F. Feighan, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ProCenturyCorporation (“ProCentury”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofProCentury as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. ProCentury’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for ProCentury andhave:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused suchdisclosure controls to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to ProCentury, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of ProCentury’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as at the endof the period concerned by this report based on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in ProCentury’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during ProCentury’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, ProCentury’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. ProCentury’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, toProCentury’s auditors and the audit committee of ProCentury’s board ofdirectors:
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect ProCentury’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in ProCentury’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.    November 12, 2004    Date     /s/ Edward F. Feighan    Signature     Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer    Title
DENIED and Opinion Filed April 24, 2024

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-24-00476-CV

IN RE ELECTRONICS RESEARCH, INC. AND 

E R I INSTALLATIONS, INC., Relators

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-24-00060-D

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Reichek, Smith, and Garcia

Opinion by Justice Garcia

Before the Court is relators’ April 22, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus. 

Relators challenge the trial court’s April 15, 2024 order wherein the trial court 

denied relators’ Motion for Protection and granted real party in interest’s Motion to 

Compel Jurisdictional Discovery Regarding Defendants’ Special Appearance.

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relators to show that the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and that relators lack an adequate appellate remedy. In

re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.

proceeding). Relators bear the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record 

to show they are entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 
–2–

1992) (orig. proceeding). Because the parties in an original proceeding assemble 

their own record, this Court strictly enforces the requirements of rule 52 to ensure 

the integrity of the mandamus record. In re Vasquez, No. 05-15-00592-CV, 2015 

WL 2375504, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 18, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Here, relators filed an appendix with their petition and a separate mandamus 

record. But none of the documents relators included in their appendix and record is 

a sworn or certified copy as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). We thus conclude relators failed to meet 

their burden to provide a sufficient record. In any event, even if relators cured this 

defect, we conclude that relators failed to demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a).

Also before the Court is relators’ April 22, 2024 motion for immediate 

temporary relief. We deny relators’ motion as moot.

Additionally, relators’ separately filed mandamus record contains unredacted 

sensitive data, including a minor’s full birth date, in violation of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.9. Accordingly, we strike relators’ separately 
–3–

filed mandamus record. 

240476F.P05

/Dennise Garcia/

DENNISE GARCIA

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN MEDSERVE CORPORATION AT DECEMBER
31, 1996 AND FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          17,382
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,261
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,457
<INVENTORY>                                      7,708
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,868
<PP&E>                                           7,283
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,774
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 113,298
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,374
<BONDS>                                          7,284
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           120
<OTHER-SE>                                      92,879
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   113,298
<SALES>                                         82,027
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,027
<CGS>                                           58,807
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   58,807
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,451<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,741
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,972)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       162
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,134)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (437)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,571)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.35)
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES NONRECURRING CHARGES OF $3,019.
</FN>


</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Norman Wayne JONES.

No. 591PA03.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 10, 2004.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Lisa Granberry Corbett, Assistant Attorney Generals, Bill Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, John Carriker, District Attorneys, for State.

Constance E. Widenhouse, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Jones.

Daniel Shatz, Wilmington, for Sneed.

Marshall Hurley, Mary Price, for Families Against Mandatory Min.

Charles E. Daye, Legal Affairs Vice President, Paul M. Green, Durham, for NC Academy of Trial Lawyers.

***ORDER***

Pursuant to Rule 30(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, the oral arguments in the above captioned case and *State v. Corey Tyrone Sneed,* 601PA03, are hereby consolidated. The State shall have a total of thirty minutes to present oral argument and the defendants shall have a total of thirty minutes to present oral argument. By order of the Court in conference this the 10th day of February 2004.
<PAGE>   1
We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Nos.
333-13281 and 333-87193) on Form S-8 of Cox Radio, Inc. of our report dated
February 7, 2000, except as to Note 15 to the consolidated financial statements
which is dated March 6, 2000 and Note 16 to the consolidated financial
statements which is dated March 14, 2000 appearing in this Annual Report on Form
10-K/A of Cox Radio, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 20, 2000
# Official Journal C 123I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 123I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6316 April 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 123I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6316 April 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2020/C 123 I/01 | Council Decision of 14 April 2020 adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2020 | 1 |
| 2020/C 123 I/02 | Council Decision of 14 April 2020 adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2020 | 3 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2020/C 123 I/01

Council Decision of 14 April 2020 adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2020

1

2020/C 123 I/02

Council Decision of 14 April 2020 adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2020

3

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 24.1


                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

     We, the undersigned officers and directors of Viisage Technology, Inc.,
hereby severally constitute and appoint Denis K. Berube, Robert C. Hughes and
William A. Marshall, and each of them singly, our true and lawful attorneys with
full power to them, and each of them singly, to sign for us and in our names in
the capacities indicated below, all Annual Reports on Form 10-K required to be
filed by Viisage Technology, Inc., hereby ratifying and confirming all
signatures as they may be signed by our said attorneys, or any of them, to said
Forms 10-K.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Signature                              Title
---------                              -----
<S>                                    <C>
By: /s/ Denis K. Berube                Chairman of the Board of Directors
   ---------------------------
   Denis K. Berube

By: /s/ Robert C. Hughes               President and Chief Executive Officer
   ---------------------------         (Principal Executive Officer)
   Robert C. Hughes

By: /s/ William A. Marshall            Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
   ---------------------------         (Principal Financial and Accounting
   William A. Marshall                 Officer)

By: /s/ Charles J. Johnson             Secretary and Director
   ---------------------------
   Charles J. Johnson

By: /s/ Harriet Mouchly-Weiss          Director
   ---------------------------
   Harriet Mouchly-Weiss

By: /s/ Peter Nessen                   Director
   ---------------------------
   Peter Nessen

By: /s/ Thomas J. Reilly               Director
   ---------------------------
   Thomas J. Reilly
</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-56919 and 333-50825) of our report dated February 23, 1999 
(except for Note 15b, as to which the date is March 5, 1999), with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of Alydaar Software Corporation, included
in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1998.


/s/ HOLTZ RUBENSTEIN & CO., LLP
HOLTZ RUBENSTEIN & CO., LLP

Melville, New York
April 5, 1999
STATE of North Carolina v. Glenn Franklin SETZER.

No. 180P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2005.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, for Glenn Franklin Setzer.

Gayl M. Manthei, Special Deputy Attorney General, Michael K. Lands, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 4th day of April 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2005."
CLARK v. WAL-MART.

No. 321PA04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2005.

Jennifer T. Gottsegen, Michael W. Ballance, Raleigh, for Wal-Mart and Ins. Co. of Penn.

Daniel Deuterman, Greensboro, for Sandra J. Clark.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th day of April 2005 by N.C. Academy of Trial Lawyers for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i). By order of the Court in conference this the 13th day of April 2005."
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4961 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 7,7′-[1,3- 

Propanediylbis[imino(6-fluoro-1,3,5-triazine-4,2-diyl)imino[2- 

[(aminocarbonyl)amino]-4,1-phenylene]azo]]bis-, sodium salt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2008 

Mrs. MYRICK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 7,7′-[1,3- 

Propanediylbis[imino(6-fluoro-1,3,5-triazine-4,2- 

diyl)imino[2-[(aminocarbonyl)amino]-4,1-phenylene]azo]]bis-, sodium salt. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. 7,7′-[1,3-PROPANEDIYLBIS[IMINO(6-FLUORO4 1,3,5-TRIAZINE-4,2-DIYL)IMINO[2- 

5 [(AMINOCARBONYL)AMINO]-4,1-PHEN6 YLENE]AZO]]BIS-, SODIUM SALT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.46 of the Har8 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4961 IH

1 7,7′-[1,3-Propanediylbis[imino(6-fluoro-1,3,5-triazine-4,2- 

2 diyl)imino[2-[(aminocarbonyl)amino]-4,1-phen3 ylene]azo]]bis-, sodium salt) is amended by striking ‘‘12/ 

4 31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

6 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

7 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

8 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7123
TESSA RANI GIBSON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus CHARLESTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; MARK A. LEWIS; DONALD V. SALTERS; BRIAN E. BRITTON; MATTHEY R. DOWNING; DENISE BROWN; LISA A. GONZALEZ-WILLIAMS; KEITH K. FRANKLIN; ARTHUR L. GREY; FTI BARNES; FTI HENNIX; OFFICER JAMES; OFFICER GREATHOUSE; KENNETH E. SPONIC; MICHAEL TICE; WALTER WRIGHT; HENRY GATHERS; STEVEN C. DURBIN; WALLACE ALSTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:07-cv-01364-PMD) Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 19, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tessa Rani Gibson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Tessa Rani Gibson appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to reconsider its order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gibson v. Charleston County Det. Ctr. , No. 2:07-cv-01364-PMD (D.S.C. July 26, 2007). 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 Ammex Gold Mining Corp.  (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2007  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



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 operation of the Company.



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









Date:  February  11, 2008



By: /s/ W. Campbell Birge

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

W. Campbell Birge

Chief Executive Officer
C.F. LITTLE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. NORTH CAROLINA NATURAL GAS CORPORATION.

No. 38P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2005.

Fletcher L. Hartsell, Jr., Concord, Christy E. Wilhelm, for N.C. Natural Gas Corp.

James E. Scarbrough, Concord, for C.F. Little Development.

*688*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 18th day of January 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2005."
Mimi KORMAN, Petitioner v. Julio IGLESIAS.

No. 19-388

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 25, 2019

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