alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 106 (Thursday, June 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 31426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13176]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS


Notice of Meeting

Established By Congress May 17, 1910.
    The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled 
for 17 June 2010, at 10 a.m. in the Commission offices at the National 
Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, NW., 
Washington DC, 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include buildings, 
parks and memorials.
    Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission 
are available on our Web site: http://www.cfa.gov. Inquiries regarding 
the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be 
addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at 
the above address; by e-mailing <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#651611040303250603044b020a13"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1e6d6a7f78785e7d787f30797168">[email protected]</span></a>; or by calling 202-504-
2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the 
hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before 
the meeting date.

    Dated: May 26, 2010 in Washington DC.
Thomas Luebke,
AIA Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-13176 Filed 6-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6330-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 18, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-00398-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF P.R.D.S. AND P.S., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-09-14454

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Carlyle, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Myers

Appellant appeals from an order in a suit to modify the parent-child 

relationship. We questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal because the order is 

signed by the associate judge and, subject to certain exceptions not applicable here, 

has not triggered the deadline for filing the appeal. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.

§ 201.016(b), (c). We instructed appellant to file, by July 15, 2022, a letter brief 

addressing the jurisdictional issue and cautioned her that failure to comply may 

result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. As of today’s date, appellant 

has not responded.
–2–

Because the referring court has not signed the order of the associate judge, the 

notice of appeal is premature and we lack jurisdiction. We dismiss the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

220398f.p05

/Lana Myers//

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF P.R.D.S. 

AND P.S., CHILDREN

No. 05-22-00398-CV 

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-09-14454.

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. 

Justices Carlyle and Goldstein 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 18th day of August, 2022.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30776-30777]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13214]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1682]


Grant of Authority For Subzone Status; Deere & Company 
(Agricultural Equipment and Component Parts); Waterloo, IA

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:


[[Page 30777]]


    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for `` * * * the 
establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for 
other purposes,'' and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant 
to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of 
entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results 
in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest;
    Whereas, the Cedar Rapids Airport Commission, grantee of FTZ 175, 
has made application to the Board for authority to establish special-
purpose subzone status with manufacturing authority at the Deere & 
Company facilities, located in Waterloo, Iowa (FTZ Docket 50-2009, 
filed 11/12/2009);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the 
Federal Register (74 FR 59524, 11/18/2009) and the application has been 
processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone 
status for activity related to the manufacturing and distribution of 
agricultural equipment at the facilities of Deere & Company, located in 
Waterloo, Iowa (Subzone 175A), as described in the application and 
Federal Register notice, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's 
regulations, including Section 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of May, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-13214 Filed 6-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
EX-34 (o)
(logo) ERNST & YOUNG

Ernst & Young LLP
Suite 2800
600 Peachtree Street
Atlanta Georgia 30308-2215

Phone: (404) 874-8300
www.ey.com

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB
Servicing Criteria, that ZC Sterling Insurance Agency, Inc. (the Company)
complied with certain servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the
Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the ZC Sterling
Integrated Product Solution (ZIPS) hazard insurance outsourcing Platform
(Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006. The Company has
determined that only certain servicing criteria 1122 (d) 1(iv), 1122 (d) 2(vi),
1122 (d) 4(xi), 1122 (d) 4(xii), and 1122 (d) 4(xiii) are applicable to the
activities performed by them with respect to the Platform covered by this
report. The Company has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB
are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the
Platform covered by this report. See Appendix A of management's assertion for
the Platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the
Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with
the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than
all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether
the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing
criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our
procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred
either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances
or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by
this report for the Platform. We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006
for the ZIPS Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Ernst & Young

February 20, 2007


A Member Practice of Ernst & Young Global
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY

In connection with the quarterly report of Infolinx
Communications Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10KSB for the fiscal period ending
November 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Matthew Jones, President & C.E.O. 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.

/s/ Matthew Jones

Name: Matthew JonesTitle: President & Chief Executive
Officer February 28, 2008

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MARIE MARTHA BALTAZAR, ETC.
, Appellant,

v.

BALTIMORE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and MATHEL W.

CUNNINGHAM
, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 21

- 180

[ April 29, 2021 ]

Appeal from the C ounty Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; August A. Bonavita , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 502013CC013297XXXXMB and 502019AP000135CAXXMB.

Jane Kreusler

- Walsh, Rebecca Mercier Vargas, and Stephanie L.

Serafin of Kreusler

- Walsh, Vargas & Serafi n, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Cheryl J. Lister of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP, Tampa and Jason A. Walters of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP, Alabama, Pro hac vice, for appellees.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE
, C.J., M AY and C IKLIN
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 555

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION III

No. E-16-146

LOBINA CONSTRUCTION

APPELLANT

V.

DARYL BASSETT, DIRECTOR,

DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE

SERVICES, and JOE MARTINEZ

APPELLEES

Opinion Delivered November 16, 2016

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS

BOARD OF REVIEW

[NO. 2016-BR-00218]

AFFIRMED

PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge

Lobina Construction appeals from a decision of the Arkansas Board of Review (Board),

which concluded that Lobina Construction had discharged the claimant, Joe Martinez, for

reasons other than misconduct in connection with the work and awarded Martinez benefits.

The only issue on appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Board’s

finding. We affirm.

The standard of review to be followed in such cases is clear:

We do not conduct a de novo review in appeals from the Board of Review. In

appeals of unemployment compensation cases we instead review the evidence and all

reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Board of

Review’s findings. The findings of fact made by the Board of Review are conclusive

if supported by substantial evidence; even when there is evidence upon which the

Board might have reached a different decision, the scope of judicial review is limited

to a determination of whether the Board could have reasonably reached its decision

based on the evidence before it. Substantial evidence is such evidence as a reasonable

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 555

Barnard v. Dir., 2013 Ark. App. 143, at 2 (quoting Valentine v. Dir., 2012 Ark. App. 612, at

3). It is also clear that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be accorded their

testimony are matters to be resolved by the Board of Review, Barnard, supra; like a jury, an

administrative body is free to believe or disbelieve the testimony of any witness. Gunter v.

Dir., 82 Ark. App. 346, 107 S.W.3d 902 (2003).

Here, the only issue presented is the sufficiency of the evidence. From our review of

the record, we conclude that the Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Therefore, we affirm the Board’s decision by this memorandum opinion pursuant to section

(a) of In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).

Affirmed.

VIRDEN and GLOVER, JJ., agree.

Rush & Rush, by: Patrick F. Flake, for appellant.

Phyllis A. Edwards, for appellee.

2
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2297 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 746
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2297

                          [Report No. 106-369]

        To reauthorize the Water Resources Research Act of 1984.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 27, 2000

   Mr. Crapo (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. 
Baucus, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Voinovich, 
    Mr. Allard, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Robb, Mr. Daschle, and Ms. Landrieu) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Environment and Public Works

                            August 25, 2000

 Reported under authority of the order of the Senate of July 26, 2000, 
            by Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To reauthorize the Water Resources Research Act of 1984.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH ACT OF 1984.

    Section 104 of the Water Resources Research Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 
10303) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``the Secretary'' and 
        all that follows and inserting ``the Secretary $9,000,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001, $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 and 
        2003, and $12,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005, 
        to remain available until expended.''; and
            (2) in the first sentence of subsection (g)(1), by striking 
        ``the Secretary of the Interior'' and all that follows through 
        ``2000'' and inserting ``the Secretary $3,000,000 for fiscal 
        year 2001, $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003, 
        and $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005, to be 
        available''.
                                                       Calendar No. 746

106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2297

                          [Report No. 106-369]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

        To reauthorize the Water Resources Research Act of 1984.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            August 25, 2000

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### Chauncey H. Skidmore, Plaintiff, v. The Anchor Brewing Company, Defendant.

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Dykman, J.
EXHIBIT 99.01


 


 





NEXEON
PATENT PORTFOLIO


NANOTUBE-REINFORCED
BALLOONS FOR DELIVERING PATENTS


	#	Patent/App #	Title
	1	US 8187221	THERAPEUTIC AGENTS WITHIN OR BEYOND THE WALL OF BLOOD VESSELS,  AND METHODS  OF MAKING  AND USING SAME
	2	US 13/455,919	THERAPEUTIC AGENTS WITHIN OR BEYOND THE WALL OF BLOOD VESSELS,  AND METHODS  OF MAKING  AND USING SAME
	3	US 13/455,973	THERAPEUTIC AGENTS WITHIN OR BEYOND THE WALL OF BLOOD VESSELS,  AND METHODS  OF MAKING  AND USING SAME
	4	AU2009269104	THERAPEUTIC AGENTS WITHIN OR BEYOND THE WALL OF BLOOD VESSELS,  AND METHODS  OF MAKING  AND USING SAME
	5	CA2730273A1	THERAPEUTIC AGENTS WITHIN OR BEYOND THE WALL OF BLOOD VESSELS,  AND METHODS  OF MAKING  AND USING SAME
	6	CN102176932 A	THERAPEUTIC AGENTS WITHIN OR BEYOND THE WALL OF BLOOD VESSELS,  AND METHODS  OF MAKING  AND USING SAME
	7	EP2313121 A2	THERAPEUTIC AGENTS WITHIN OR BEYOND THE WALL OF BLOOD VESSELS,  AND METHODS  OF MAKING  AND USING SAME
	8	JP2011527601 A	THERAPEUTIC AGENTS WITHIN OR BEYOND THE WALL OF BLOOD VESSELS,  AND METHODS  OF MAKING  AND USING SAME
	9	JP5481479 B2	THERAPEUTIC AGENTS WITHIN OR BEYOND THE WALL OF BLOOD VESSELS,  AND METHODS  OF MAKING  AND USING SAME
	10	WO2010005575	THERAPEUTIC AGENTS WITHIN OR BEYOND THE WALL OF BLOOD VESSELS,  AND METHODS  OF MAKING  AND USING SAME


 


IRIS FILTER-SHEATH CATHETER SYSTEM FOR
EMBOLISM PROTECTION PATENTS


 


	11	US 8257384	INTERVENTIONAL CATHETER FOR RETROGRADE USE HAVING EMBOLIC PROTECTION CAPABILITY AND METHODS OF USE
	12	US 7837702	INTERVENTIONAL CATHETER FOR RETROGRADE USE HAVING EMBOLIC PROTECTION CAPABILITY AND METHODS OF USE
	13	US 20130253570	APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR FILTERING EMBOLI DURING PERCUTANEOUS AORTIC VALVE PROCEDURES AND REPAIR PROCEDURES WITH FILTRATION SYSTEM COUPLED IN-SITU TO DISTAL END OF SHEATH
	14	US 20130253571	APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR FILTERING EMBOLI DURING PERCUTANEOUS AORTIC VALVE PROCEDURES AND REPAIR PROCEDURES WITH FILTRATION SYSTEM COUPLED IN-SITU TO DISTAL END OF SHEATH
*Exhibit 32(a)***Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**     I, Jeffrey L. Rutherford, President and Chief Executive Officer of LESCO, Inc. (the“Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30,2006, which this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Jeffrey L. Rutherford     Jeffrey L. Rutherford  President and Chief Executive Officer     Date: August 8, 2006  
37
#### SAMUEL F. DINAN, Respondent, *v.*JULIAN ALLEN, Appellant.

*Attachment*— *presumption as to the ground upon which it was granted.*

Appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate an order of arrest and a warrant of attachment.

■With reference to the attachment, the court at General Term said : “The affidavit upon which the order of attachment is also granted shows that the defendant was a non-resident of the State at the time of the commencement of the action, and is quite sufficient to have justified the order of attachment on that ground. The attachment does not appear in the papers, and we are not able, therefore, to see that it was not granted on the ground of non-residence as well as of alleged fraud. The Code requires that the *attachment*shall state the ground, but in the absence of the warrant we ought to assume that the court granted the attachment upon all the grounds sufficiently established, *prima*facie, by the affidavit.

“ For these reasons we think the attachment should not be vacated.”

*Jff. Gothren,*for the appellant. *Qornelius A..*Runlcle, for the respondent.

Opinion by

Davis, P. J. ;

Brady and Ingalls, JJ., concurred.

Order modified as directed in opinion, and affirmed as modified, without costs to either party.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DAVID HELLER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-2939

[December 27, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Barbara Anne 

McCarthy, Judge; L.T. Case No. 06-008766 CF10A.

David Heller, Miami, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5272 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 551
113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5272

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               August 5 (legislative day, August 1), 2014

                     Received; read the first time

                           September 8, 2014

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To prohibit certain actions with respect to deferred action for aliens 
   not lawfully present in the United States, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS; 
              RESTRICTIONS ON EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION FOR ALIENS NOT 
              IN LAWFUL STATUS.

    No agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government may use 
Federal funding or resources after July 30, 2014--
            (1) to consider or adjudicate any new or previously denied 
        application of any alien requesting consideration of deferred 
        action for childhood arrivals, as authorized by Executive 
        memorandum dated June 15, 2012 and effective on August 15, 2012 
        (or by any other succeeding Executive memorandum or policy 
        authorizing a similar program);
            (2) to newly authorize deferred action for any class of 
        aliens not lawfully present in the United States; or
            (3) to authorize any alien to work in the United States if 
        such alien--
                    (A) was not lawfully admitted into the United 
                States in compliance with the Immigration and 
                Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.); and
                    (B) is not in lawful status in the United States on 
                the date of the enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives August 1, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                                       Calendar No. 551

113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5272

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To prohibit certain actions with respect to deferred action for aliens 
   not lawfully present in the United States, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 8, 2014

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar
```