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

[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 47 (Friday, March 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 13141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5887]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM95-2-5-000]

Midwestern Gas Transmission Company; Tariff Filing

March 6, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 1, 1995, Midwestern Gas Transmission 
Company (Midwestern), filed Substitute Original Sheet No. 6 of its FERC 
Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, for an effective date of 
September 1, 1993.
    Midwestern states that this tariff sheet is filed pursuant to 
Section 2 of Midwestern's Rate Schedule LMS-MA which provides that 
Midwestern shall automatically adjust the rates associated with its no-
notice, Daily Demand Service (DDS) to reflect any changes in the rates 
charged by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee) for its LMS-MA 
service.
    Midwestern further states that copies of the filing have been 
mailed to all of its jurisdictional customers and affected state 
regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to said filing should file a petition to intervene or protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol 
Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 211 
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 
Sections 385.211 and 385.214. All such petitions or protests should be 
filed on or before March 13, 1995. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to this proceeding. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a petition to intervene. Copies of 
this filing are on file and available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-5887 Filed 3-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
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



The undersigned, Jingjun Hu, the Chief Executive Officer of HONG KONG WINALITE GROUP, INC. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



1.

The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.

Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 15th day of May 2008.



/s/ Jingjun HuJingjun Hu
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Hong Kong Winalite Group, Inc. and will be retained by Hong Kong Winalite Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.



---
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4202 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4202

    To require an annual budget estimate for the initiatives of the 
 National Institutes of Health pursuant to reports and recommendations 
            made under the National Alzheimer's Project Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 12, 2022

  Ms. Collins (for herself, Mr. Markey, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
Moran, and Mr. Menendez) introduced the following bill; which was read 
 twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
                                Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To require an annual budget estimate for the initiatives of the 
 National Institutes of Health pursuant to reports and recommendations 
            made under the National Alzheimer's Project Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Alzheimer's Accountability and 
Investment Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROJECT.

    Section 2 of the National Alzheimer's Project Act (42 U.S.C. 11225) 
is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
    ``(h) Professional Judgment Budget.--For fiscal year 2024 and each 
subsequent fiscal year, the Director of the National Institutes of 
Health shall prepare and submit, directly to the President for review 
and transmittal to Congress, an annual budget estimate for the 
initiatives of the National Institutes of Health pursuant to the 
reports and recommendations made under this Act, including an estimate 
of the number and type of personnel needs for the National Institutes 
of Health.''.
                                 <all>
```
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3885 

To prohibit contracts with persons who have disclosed non-public United 

States Government information to unauthorized persons. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 21, 2022 

Mr. HAGERTY (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit contracts with persons who have disclosed nonpublic United States Government information to unauthorized persons. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Government Con5 tracts for Known Leakers Act of 2022’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3885 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTS WITH PERSONS WHO 

2 HAVE DISCLOSED NON-PUBLIC UNITED 

3 STATES GOVERNMENT INFORMATION TO UN4 AUTHORIZED PERSONS. 

5 (a) PROHIBITION.—No officer, employee, depart6 ment, agency, or instrumentality of the United States 

7 Government shall knowingly enter a contract or other 

8 agreement for goods or services with— 

9 (1) a person who has previously disclosed non10 public United States Government information to an 

11 unauthorized person; or 

12 (2) an entity for whom a person who has pre13 viously disclosed non-public United States Govern14 ment information to an unauthorized person serves 

15 as an employee or agent. 

16 (b) PENALTY.—Any person who violates subsection 

17 (a) shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not 

18 more than 5 years, or both. 

19 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 

20 (1) ENTITY.—The term ‘‘entity’’ means a 

21 group of individuals, partnership, corporation, asso22 ciation, cooperative, or other similar entity. 

23 (2) PERSON.—The term ‘‘person’’ means a nat24 ural person. 

25 (3) UNAUTHORIZED PERSON.—The term ‘‘un26 authorized person’’ means any person or entity that 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3885 IS

1 is not authorized by law or contract or otherwise au2 thorized to receive the non-public United States Gov3 ernment information at issue. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Order entered November 24, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00411-CV

TONYA PARKS, Appellant

V.

AFFILIATED BANK, ET. AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-01614-B

ORDER

By letter filed November 19, 2021, appellant informs the Court the 

reporter’s record filed November 15 is incomplete. Specifically, it does not 

include the record of the June 5, 2020 hearing on appellees’ plea to the jurisdiction 

or the record of the May 15, 2021 hearing on appellant’s motion for new trial and 

motion to vacate.

We construe appellant’s letter as a motion to supplement the reporter’s 

record. We GRANT the motion and ORDER Robin N. Washington, Official 
Court Reporter for County Court at Law No. 2, to file the record of the June 2020 

and May 2021 hearings no later than December 13, 2021. Because the record was 

first due July 6, 2021, we caution Ms. Washington that any extension requests will 

not be granted absent exigent circumstances.

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. 

Washington and the parties.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 419 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for a full annuity supplement 

for certain air traffic controllers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 24, 2021 

Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. MORAN, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. 

BENNET, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. 

BROWN, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. 

COTTON, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. DAINES, Ms. DUCKWORTH, Ms. 

ERNST, Mrs. FISCHER, Mr. GRASSLEY, Ms. HASSAN, Mr. HOEVEN, Mrs. 

HYDE-SMITH, Mr. KAINE, Mr. KENNEDY, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. 

MANCHIN, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. RISCH, Ms. 

ROSEN, Mr. RUBIO, Ms. SINEMA, Mr. TESTER, Mr. THUNE, Mr. TILLIS, 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. WARREN, Mr. WICKER, Mr. WYDEN, and Mr. 

LANKFORD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for a 

full annuity supplement for certain air traffic controllers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Continuity for Opera5 tors with Necessary Training Required for ATC Contract 

6 Towers Act of 2021’’ or the ‘‘CONTRACT Act of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 419 IS

1 SEC. 2. ANNUITY SUPPLEMENT. 

2 Section 8421a(c) of title 5, United States Code, is 

3 amended— 

4 (1) by striking ‘‘as an air traffic’’ and inserting 

5 the following: ‘‘as an— 

6 ‘‘(1) air traffic’’; 

7 (2) in paragraph (1), as so designated, by strik8 ing the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

9 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(2) air traffic controller pursuant to a contract 

11 made with the Secretary of Transportation under 

12 section 47124 of title 49.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

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

I,
John E. Bourgoin, certify, to the best of my knowledge, that based upon a review of the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three months ended
September 30, 2004 (the Form 10-Q), the Form 10-Q fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three
month period covered by the Form 10-Q.

|                         |                                      
|------------------------ | -------------------------------------
|                         |                                      
|                         |                                      
|                        
|Dated:  November 8, 2004 | By:     /s/ JOHN E. BOURGOIN         
|                         | John E. Bourgoin                     
|                         | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                         | MIPS Technologies, Inc.              

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

1

---
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3664

SPM Flow Control, Inc. DBA Weir SPM:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### G. M. BOONE v. BELLE E. COLLINS.

(Filed 14 June, 1933.)

Appeal by defendant from *Moore, J.,*at September Term, 1932, of Haywood.

New trial.

*Grover G. Davis for plaintiff.*

*J os. E. J ohnson and J ohnson, Smothers & Rollins for defendant.*

Pee Cuioam.

When the ease was here on a former appeal (202 N. C., 12) a new trial was granted for tbe reason that the judge inadvertently placed the burden of proof on both parties. On the second trial the same error was committed, and we are not satisfied that the attempted correction resulted in a clear explanation of the law, particularly in view of the instructions relating to adverse possession.

New trial.
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

851 (1991). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that this court's 

extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 

228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). 

Under DCR 16, a settlement agreement may be enforced against 

a party if the essential terms are reduced to writing and signed by the 

party or his attorney or entered into the district court's minutes in the 

form of an order. Grisham v. Grisham, 128 Nev. , , 289 P.3d 230, 

233 (2012); see May v. Anderson, 121 Nev. 668, 672, 119 P.3d 1254, 1257 

(2005). In the present case, petitioner acknowledged that the purported 

settlement agreement was not signed. Likewise, while real parties in 

interests' counsel represented to the district court that a settlement 

agreement had been reached, the terms of the settlement were not agreed 

to in open court or put in the minutes in the form of an order. 

Additionally, the e-mails from real parties in interests' counsel that 

petitioner provided do not contain an express assent to the material terms 

of the settlement agreement. Based on these facts, the district court did 

not act arbitrarily or capriciously or exceed its jurisdiction in denying 

petitioner's motion to enforce the settlement agreement. May, 121 Nev. at 

672-73, 119 P.3d at 1257; see NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320. 

Accordingly, having considered the petition and appendix, we 

conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our intervention by 

way of extraordinary relief is warranted, NRAP 21(b)(1); Pan, 120 Nev. at 

224, 88 P.3d at 841; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851, and we 

ORDER the petitiQn_RE IED. 

ri.17) 

Gibbons 

J. , J. 

Saitta 

2 
cc: Hon. Allan R. Earl, District Judge 

Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, LLP 

Angius & Terry LLP/Las Vegas 

Cantey Hanger, LLP 

Morris Polich & Purdy, LLP/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
EXHIBIT 27 -- THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM PAYLESS SHOESOURCE, INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS FOR
THE 13 WEEKS ENDED MAY 1, 1999, AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF
MAY 1, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001060232
<NAME> PAYLESS SHOESOURCE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-01-1999
<CASH>                                         112,600<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0<F2>
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,800<F3>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F3>
<INVENTORY>                                    403,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               549,100
<PP&E>                                         914,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                 424,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,072,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          243,900
<BONDS>                                         71,900<F4>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           300
<OTHER-SE>                                     706,300<F5>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,072,200
<SALES>                                        689,200<F6>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               689,200
<CGS>                                          468,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  468,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 58,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             35,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,300
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.09<F7>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.09<F7>
<FN>
<F1>Includes cash equivalent securities.
<F2>Any "securities" are shown under "Cash".
<F3>Receivables are net after deduction of allowances.
<F4>Consists of Capital Lease Obligations plus Long-Term Debt.
<F5>Reflects Retained Earnings and Additional Paid In Capital.
<F6>Reflects net sales.
<F7>Expressed in dollars.
</FN>


</TABLE>
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3131

Sowa Tool & Machine Co. Ltd:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2521

Reelcraft Industries:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
#### STATE v. WILLIAM TUTTLE, ERNEST TUTTLE and RUFUS MERRITT.

(Filed 12 December, 1928.)

Criminal Law — Evidence—Weight and Sufficiency.

A motion for judgment as of nonsuit upon tbe evidence should be granted when the evidence is purely conjectural as to the identity of the defendants tried for a violation of the prohibition statute.

*386Appeal by defendants, William and Ernest Tuttle, from *Deal, J.,*and a jury, at April Special Term, 1928, of Stoices.

Reversed.

. *.Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash, for the State.*

*W. Beade Johnson for defendants, William and Ernest Tuttle.*

Pee Cueiam.

The three defendants were convicted of violating the law against the manufacture, etc., of intoxicating liquors.

The defendant, Rufus Merritt, was sentenced by the court below and did not. appeal. The Tuttles introduced no evidence in the court below, and at the conclusion of the State’s evidence, demurred .to the evidence and moved to .dismiss the action or for judgment of nonsuit. C. S., 4643.

The appeal presents the sole question as to the sufficiency of the State’s evidence to support the verdict. The evidence was wholly circumstantial. As to the identity of the Tuttles, it was merely, suspicion and conjecture. . ' '

After a thorough and careful examination of the evidence, as appears in the record, we are of the opinion that it is not sufficient to support the verdict and judgment thereon. The judgment of the court below is

Reversed.