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

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2204

To suspend temporarily the duty on high molecular, very high molecular,

homopolymer, natural color, virgin polymerized powders.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 7, 2000

Mr. THURMOND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on high molecular, very

high molecular, homopolymer, natural color, virgin polymerized powders.

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

3 SECTION 1. HIGH MOLECULAR, VERY HIGH MOLECULAR,

4 HOMOPOLYMER, NATURAL COLOR, VIRGIN

5 POLYMERIZED POWDERS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

9 new heading:
2

•S 2204 IS

‘‘ 9902.38.00 High molecular,

very high molecular, or ultra

high molecular

weight,

homopolymer,

natural color, virgin polymerized

powders with a

specific gravity of

< 940 g/liter

and molecular

weight of

500,000-

6,000,000 (as defined by ASTM

D4020) containing a maximum nominal

500 ppm calcium

stearate with low

bulk densities

(200–350 g/l)

and/or complying

with ASTM

F648, Types 1,2,

and ISO 5834,

Types 1, 2, and/

or extremely fine

or coarse particle

sizes (<70 or

>250 microns)

and/or special

dissolution properties. (CAS No.

9002–88–4)

(provided for in

subheading

3901.20.00) ....... Free Free No change On or before

12/31/2002 ’’.

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

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

4 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
Order entered October 1 9 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 00955
- CV
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellant
V. BRIAN MILTON, Appellee On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 14
- 11057



### O RDER Although appellant has re quested the reporter’s record and made payment arrangements with the reporter for the fee, the reporter’s record, originally due Septe mber 6, 2016, has not yet
been filed

. Accordingly, we ORDER Antoinette Reagor, Official Court Reporter of the 68 th Judicial District Court, to file the record no later than November 11 , 2016.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Reagor and the parties.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
<PAGE>


                                                                   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 Quarterly Report of First Franklin Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Daniel T. Voelpel, the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 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 result of operations of the
Company.




/s/ Daniel T. Voelpel
--------------------------------------------
Daniel T. Voelpel
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002



                                      -22-
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Clinical Services.                    

*Date:*                         January 29, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         2 p.m. to 3 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Call)                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ramesh Vemuri, PhD, Chief, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C-212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7700,                         *rv23r@nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 14, 2010.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-1051 Filed 1-20-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
# TWEATI'ORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS AURTIN. ‘J%XAS 

### 78711

November 8, 1974 The Honorable M. L. Brockette Commissioner of Education Texas Education Agency The Honorable Bevington Reed Commissioner of Higher Education Coordinating Board Texas College and University System Austin, Texas Opinion No. H- 446 Re: Validity ofcontrac,t between State Board of Education and Coordinating Board for coordination of post-secondary technicalvocational education and related questions.

You have requested our opinion concerning the authority ofthe State Board of Education and the Coordinattng Board, Texas College and University System, to enter into an interagency agreement regarding the administration of technical-vocational programs inpost-secondary institutions. Section 61,067, Texas Education Code, specifically allows the Coordinating Board to “contract with any other state governmental agency
~to reduce duplication and a~ehievebetter use ofpersonnel and facilities. ” However the Coordinating Board “shall perform only the functions which are enumerated 00D[by statute].” See, 61. 021,, Texas Education Code. General authority fey interagency agreements is granted by Art. 4413(32), V. T.C. S.s the Interagency Cooperation Act, Section 4 ofthis act requires advance approval,of the agreement or contract by the Board ofControl. The considerations to be passed onby the BoaPd of Control are set out i.nSection 5, which provides:

No agreement or contract may be entered into or performed which wiP1requi.re or permit an agency of the State to exceed its constitutional or statutory duties and responsibilities, or the Iimitations of its appropriated funds. In reviewing proposed agreements or po 2056The Honorable MiI.L. Brockette

The Honorable Bevington Reed, page 2 (H-446)

contracts ofthe character described in this Act, the Board of Control is authorized and directed to consider the foll.owing factors, which shall notbe construed to be excl.usive: (a) Whether the services specified are necessary and essential for activities andwork that are properly within the statutory f-unctions and programs ofthe affected agencies ofthe State Government:

Itis our opinion that since review ofthe validity ofaproposed interagency agreement or contract is withi,nthe statutory responsibility of the Board ofControl, your questions concerning aparticular proposal should be addressed initially to that office. See Attorney General Opinion - H-407 (1974). SUM~MARY

Questions concerning the validity ofaproposed interagency agreement should be submitted initially to the Board of Control for its determination. Very truly yours,

JOHN L. HILL Attorney General of 

# h%aLM DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman Texas

Opinion Committee pe 2057
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Air Industries Group, Inc.
(formerly Gales Industries Incorporated)(the "Company"), does hereby certify
under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K/A fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Dated: October 16, 2009                            /s/ Scott A. Glassman
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Scott A. Glassman
                                                  Chief Accounting Officer

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.
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-4030 and Form S-3 No. 333-31161) pertaining to the Heartport,
Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan and Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the convertible
subordinated notes, of our report dated January 26, 1998, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Heartport, Inc. included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997.

San Jose, California
March 30, 1998
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13

                           [TASER INTERNATIONAL LOGO]

                                PROMISSORY NOTE

Amount of Note ($): $200,000 CASH
City: SCOTTSDALE, State: ARIZONA
Date: MARCH 31, 2000

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned jointly and severally promise(s) to pay
to the order of:

     BRUCE R. CULVER

the principal sum of:

     TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND & NO/100 ($200,000.00) DOLLARS together with interest
thereon from the date at the rate of:

     10.00%

percent per annum until maturity. The principal balance and interest shall be
due and payable on or before January 1, 2001.

     Unless specifically disallowed by law, should litigation arise hereunder,
service of process therefore may be obtained through certified mail, return
receipt requested; the parties hereto waiving and all rights they may have to
object to the method by which service was perfected.

     All matters pertinent to this Agreement (including its interpretation,
application, validity, performance and breach), shall be governed by, construed
and enforce in accordance with the laws of the State of Arizona. The parties
herein waive trial by jury and agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction and
venue of a court of subject matter jurisdiction located in Maricopa County,
State of Arizona. In the event that litigation results from or arises out of
this Agreement or the performance thereof, the parties agree to reimburse the
prevailing party's reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and all other
expenses, whether or not taxable by the court as costs, in addition to any
other relief to which the prevailing party may be entitled. In such event, no
action shall be entertained by said court or any court of competent
jurisdiction if filed more than one year subsequent to the date the cause(s) of
action actually accrued regardless of whether damages were otherwise as of said
time calculable.

                            TASER INTERNATIONAL INC.
                            ------------------------
                                  CORPORATION



/s/ Bruce R. Culver                     By: /s/ Patrick W. Smith
--------------------------------        -------------------------------------
Signature                               Signature

Bruce R. Culver                         Patrick W. Smith
Name Printed                            CEO
No. 1,864.

#### STATE ex rel. DONOVAN, Attorney General, Relator, *v.*McGIFFIN, Assessor, et al., Respondents.

Original- — Alternative Writ of Mandate.

Decided October 9, 1902.

*Mr. James*Donovan, m *pra. per.*

Per Curiam.

— Relator’s application for an alternative writ of mandate is denied.

Decided October 11, 1902.

Per Curiam. — Relator’s amended application for an alternative writ of mandate is denied.

Decided October 16, 1902.

Per Curiam. — Relator’s second amended application for an alternative writ of mandate,- — this day submitted to the court, is hereby denied.

(Mr. Justice Pigott, being disqualified, takes- no part in making the foregoing orders.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000743456
<NAME> 83A
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         125,559
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  212,635
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               338,194
<PP&E>                                      16,894,055
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,562,830
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,669,419
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,091
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,632,328
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,669,419
<SALES>                                        417,066
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               419,534
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  250,840
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                168,694
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            168,694
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   168,694
<EPS-BASIC>                                       6.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2197 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2197

      To reliquidate certain entries of tomato sauce preparation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 7, 2000

  Mr. Moynihan (for himself and Mr. Schumer) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To reliquidate certain entries of tomato sauce preparation.

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

SECTION 1. RELIQUIDATION OF CERTAIN ENTRIES.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law and subject to the 
provisions of subsection (b), the United States Customs Service shall, 
not later than 180 days after the receipt of the request described in 
subsection (b), liquidate or reliquidate each entry described in 
subsection (d) containing any merchandise which, at the time of the 
original liquidation, was classified under subheading 2002.10.00 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to tomatoes, 
prepared or preserved) at the rate of duty that would have been 
applicable to such merchandise if the merchandise had been liquidated 
or reliquidated under subheading 2103.90.60 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to tomato sauce preparation) on 
the date of entry.
    (b) Requests.--Reliquidation may be made under subsection (a) with 
respect to an entry described in subsection (d) only if a request 
therefor is filed with the Customs Service within 90 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act and the request contains sufficient 
information to enable the Customs Service to locate the entry or 
reconstruct the entry if it cannot be located.
    (c) Payment of Amounts Owed.--Any amounts owed by the United States 
pursuant to the liquidation or reliquidation of an entry under 
subsection (a) shall be paid not later than 180 days after the date of 
such liquidation or reliquidation.
    (d) Affected Entries.--The entries referred to in subsection (a) 
are as follows:

 
           Entry Number                         Date of Entry
 
  521-0010813-4...................  11/28/90
  521-0011263-1...................  3/15/91
  551-2047066-5...................  3/18/92
  551-2047231-5...................  3/19/92
  551-2047441-0...................  3/20/92
 
  551-2053210-0...................  4/28/92
  819-0565392-9...................  12/12/92
 

                                 <all>
```
#### HOPKINS et al., Appellants, *v.*BUTTE COPPER MINING COMPANY, Respondent.

(No. 1,777.)

(Submitted January 16, 1904.

Decided January 23, 1904.)

For syllabus, see *Koplmns et al.*Y. *Butte Oopper Oompmiy,*ante, p. 390.

*Appeal from District Court, Silver Bow County; William Clancy, Judge.*

Action by John' Hopkins and another against the Butte Copper Mining Company. Prom a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed.

*Messrs. Forbis & Mattison,*and *Mr. M. J.*Cavanaugh, for Appellant.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BRANTLY

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant. In this cause there is involved a controversy between the plaintiffs and-the-defendant as to who is entitled to patent, under the laws of *397tlie United States, to a mining claim. Tlie plaintiffs base tbeir claim on the Parasite quartz lode location, and the defendant upon the Blind Treasure quartz lode location.

This case is in all respects similar in its facts to the case of *Hopkins et al.*v. *Butte Copper Co.,*29 Mont. 390, 74 Pac. 1081, and the question presented to this court for decision is identical with the question considered and decided therein. For the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, the judgment of the district court is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

*Reversed and remanded.*
N O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### NO. CAAP-20-0000541

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

O F THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF8 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARSHALL CHINEN, ESQ., S PECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF PEARL K. KAHOOKAULANA;

STATE OF HAWAI # I – DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants-Appellees, and DEANNA KAHOOKAULANA, Real Party In Interest-Appellant, and JOHN and MARY DOES 1-20; DOE PARTNERSHIPS, CORPORATIONS OR OTHER ENTITIES 1-20, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 3CC161000180)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Hiraoka, JJ.) Upon consideration of Plaintiff-Appellee U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., As Trustee For LSF8 Master Participation Trust's November 3, 2020 "Motion to Dismiss Appellant Deanna Kahookaulana's [( Kahookaulana )] Notice of Appeal Filed September 1, 2020" ( Motion to Dismiss ), and the record, it appears we lack appellate jurisdiction over Kahookaulana's appeal from Civil No. 3CC161000180, in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit. The appeal is untimely because Kahookaulana did not file her September 1, 2020 notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the May 11, 2020 Judgment or issuance of the May 11, 2020 Writ of Ejectment, as required by Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure ( HRAP ) Rule 4(a)(1). There is no indication in the record on appeal that the time to file the notice of appeal was extended. Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-20-0000541 20-NOV-2020 09:09 AM Dkt. 20 OGMDN O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R 

### "As a general rule, compliance with the requirement of the timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional, . . . and we must dismiss an appeal on our motion if we lack jurisdiction." Grattafiori v. State, 79 Hawai # i 10, 13, 897 P.2d 937, 940 (1995) (citations, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted); see HRAP Rule 26(b) ("[N]o court or judge or justice is authorized to change the jurisdictional requirements contained in Rule 4 of these rules.").

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, November 20, 2020.
/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard Associate Judge
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge

2