alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T D W A Y N E E . M c I N T O S H , as i ngl e m an, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. M ARI COPA COUN TY COM M UN I TY C O L L E G E D I S T R I C T ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 16224 D. C . No . 2 : 0 7 - c v - 0 0 7 6 0 - DG C ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona D a vi d G . C a m pbe l l , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r25, 2011 ** B efo re: T R O T T , G O U L D , an dR A W L IN S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D w ay ne E . M cI nt osh app ea l s pro se fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s s um m ary ju d g m e n t in h is a c tio n a lle g in g e m p lo y m e n t d is c r im in a tio n o n th e b a s is o f r a c e in vi ol at i on of T i t l e V II and 4 2 U . S . C . §§ 19 81 and 1 98 3. W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 

# FI LED NO V 01 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 16224 2 28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo, N o yes v. Kel l

y Servs. , 488 F . 3d 1163, 1167 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) , a n dw e a f f i rm. T h e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y g ran t edsu m m ary j u d g m en tb ecau se M cIn t o sh fai l edt o rai se a g en u i n e d i sp u t e o f m at eri al factas t o w h eth er d efen d an t s’ l egi t i m at e, no nd i sc ri m i nat ory r ea son for no thi ri ng hi m for ano ther posi t i on w as p r e te x t f o rd is c r im in a tio n . Se e i d. at11 69 -70 (st at i ng thatci rc um st ant i alevi dence of pret extm ustbe spec i fi c and subst ant i al ). T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on bygr a nt i ng de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on of the court ’ s orderdenyi ng sum m ary j ud gm enti n p art , gi ven th a t d e f e n d a n ts s h o w e dg o o dc au s e f o rs e e k in g r e c o n s id e r a tio n b a s e do n n e w ly d is c o v e r e de v id e n c e . See A r i z . D i s t . L R C i v. 7. 2( g) ( pr ovi di ng tha tam ot i on f or r e c ons i de r a t i on m a ybe ba s e d on as how i ng of ne w f a c t s a nd m a ybe f

i l e d a f t e rthe d e a d lin e f

o rg o o dc au s e ) ; Hi n to n v. P a c. E n ters ., 5 F . 3d 391, 395 ( 9th C i r . 1993) ( r e v ie w in g ap p lic a tio n o f lo c a l ru le s f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n ) ; s e e al

s o H of f m an v. T on nem acher , 5 9 3 F .3 d9 0 8 , 9 1 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) ( d is tr ic t c o u rts m a ye n te rta in s u c c e s s iv e m o tio n s f

o rs u m m a ryju d g m e n t) . AF F I RME D.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12944-12945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5741]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-192-000]


Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co.; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

March 3, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 1, 1995, Williston Basin Interstate 
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), tendered for filing revised tariff 
sheets to Second Revised Volume No. 1 of its FERC Gas Tariff. 
[[Page 12945]] 
    Williston Basin states that the revised tariff sheets are being 
submitted to revise its Rate Schedule ST-1 to implement a provision 
whereby customers currently served under Rate Schedule ST-1 which were 
classified to such Rate Schedule for cost mitigation purposes will be 
billed under a two part rate structure, including a one part SFV 
designed reservation rate applicable to the Maximum Daily Delivery 
Quantity (MDDQ) at all point(s) listed on the applicable Service 
Agreement.
    In addition, Williston Basin states it has revised the Gas Supply 
Realignment Tariff provisions included as Section 39 of the General 
Terms and Conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 
1, to bill Rate Schedule ST-1 shippers which were classified to such 
Rate Schedule for cost mitigation purposes only, the GSR cost surcharge 
applicable to Rate Schedule FT-1 customers and remove the associated 
MDDQ from the development of the Rate Schedule ST-1 GSR cost surcharge.
    Williston Basin has requested that the Commission accept this 
filing to become effective April 1, 1995.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before March 10, 1995. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a 
party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene. Copies of the 
filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-5741 Filed 3-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Fruit and Tree Nut Research: Byron, GA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Byron, Georgia Fruit and Tree Nut Research Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Research Projects Subjects of Investigation at this LocationEach ARS research project has related subjects of investigation.  Listed below are the subjects of investigation currently conducted at this location.
Clicking on a subject of investigation will list the research projects within that  subject of investigation.


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Organization Name:

Note: Representatives submitting on behalf of an organization must enter information below.

Requestor Representative:

Section 301 Investigation: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology 

Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation - Form to Request Exclusion of Product

When submitting a product exclusion request using this form, enter the specified 

information in the following fields and explain the basis and rationale for your statements. 

By completing this form, you certify that the information provided is complete and 

correct to the best of your knowledge. 

1. Indicate whether the comment contains business confidential information (BCI), is a public

document, or is a public version of a BCI document.

3.

2. Please provide a complete and detailed description of the product of concern:

4.

5. Requestor's relationship to the product:

CONTINUED BELOW

*

10-digit HTSUS item number* for product you wish to address in this product exclusion request:

Use numerical characters only with no special characters (example: 1023456789). For help in finding 

the HTSUS item number associated with your product, see https://hts.usitc.gov/

1

7.

6. Does this submission in regulations.gov include additional attachments?

Please indicate whether any additional attachment contains business confidential

information (BCI), is a public document, or is a public version of a BCI document.

VERSION 1

Requestor Information

Requestor Name (Last, First):

Public Version of BCI

RCS201, 22.1 ton Capacity, 1.75 in Stroke, Low Height Hydraulic Cylinder; Maximum Operating 

Pressure psi: 10000; Weight Kgs: 5,0; Oil Capacity Advance cm3: 129; Stroke Ranges mm: 24 - 47

8412210075 Schmidt, Jackie Enerpac Jackie SchmidtImporter Yes Contains BCI
END 2

8. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in the United States?:

VERSION 1

11. Please provide information in support your request, taking account of the instructions

provided in Section B of the Federal Register notice (note: text entered below can extend

beyond the apparent size of this box).

9. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in third countries?:

10. Please provide the value and quantity (with units) of the Chinese-origin product of concern

that you purchased for each calendar year specified. Limit this figure to the products

purchased by your firm (or by members of your trade association) alone. Please provide 

estimates if precise figures are unavailable.

2016 Value:

2015 Value:

2017 Value:

2016 Quantity:

2015 Quantity:

2017 Quantity:

No No BCI BCI BCI BCI BCI BCI

See addendum for additional information.
#### STATE v. BERT LANCASTER.

(Filed 14 October, 1936.)

Indictment C c — Absence of endorsement on bill of indictment that witnesses for State had testified held insufficient ground for quashal.

The absence of an endorsement on the bill of indictment by the foreman of the grand jury that any witnesses for the State had been sworn and had testified before the grand jury is insufficient to overcome the presumption of validity arising from its being returned a “true bill,” and is insufficient ground for quashal, the provisions of C. S., 2336, being directory and not mandatory.

Appeal by defendant from *Williams, J.,*at April Term, 1936, of WayNe.

No error.

This is a criminal action in which the defendant was tried on four indictments, which were consolidated by order of the trial court for purposes of trial. C. S., 4622.

The defendant was convicted of the crime charged in each indictment, and appealed from the judgments on three of said convictions to the Supreme Court, assigning errors on the trial.

*Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General McMullan for the State.*

*J. Faison Thomson for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant’s motions that each of the indictments be quashed, and that judgment on each of the convictions be arrested, on the ground that the indictments were fatally defective, for that it did not appear by an endorsement of the foreman of the grand jury that any person whose name appeared on the back of the bill of indictment *585as a witness for the State, bad been sworn and bad testified before the grand jury, were properly denied.

The absence of such endorsement was not sufficient to overcome the presumption of the validity of the indictment arising from its return by the grand jury as a “true bill.” *S. v. Lanier,*90 N. C., 714. No evidence was offered by the defendant in support of his motion. *S. v. Sultan,*142 N. C., 569, 54 S. E., 841. The provisions of C. S., 2336, with respect to the duty of the foreman of the grand jury, are directory, and not mandatory. *S. v. Avant,*202 N. C., 680, 163 S. E., 806.

Defendant’s assignments of error based upon exceptions to the charge of the court to the jury cannot be sustained. There was no error in the charge. See *S. v. Lancaster,*208 N. C., 349, 180 S. E., 577. The judgments are affirmed.

No error.
#### Roseann Podeszedlik, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Jennifer Podeszedlik, an Infant, Appellant, v Mid-Hudson Civic Center, Inc., Respondent.

Casey, J. P.

Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Jiudice, J.), entered May 9, 1989 in Dutchess County, which denied plaintiffs motion for leave to serve an amended complaint.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for injuries sustained when her daughter was allegedly attacked and raped on defendant’s premises following a concert on October 31, 1984. Her complaint alleges that defendant was negligent in failing to provide adequate security. In 1988, some three years after the action was commenced, plaintiff sought to amend her complaint to add a cause of action based upon the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101). She claimed that she had only recently learned, through the deposition of the attacker, that she had a Dram Shop Act cause of action. Supreme Court denied the motion and this appeal ensued.

A motion to amend pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) should be freely granted, but "such a motion rests within the discretion of the trial court and the exercise of such discretion will not lightly be set aside” *(Beuschel v Malm,*114 AD2d 569). Although the motion herein was not made at the eve of trial, Supreme Court noted that three years had elapsed since the *922commencement of the action and that the record indicated plaintiffs earlier awareness of alcohol involvement. Plaintiff characterizes Supreme Court’s ruling as based solely upon the length of the delay, but the court also noted that the addition of a Dram Shop Act cause of action would result in prejudice to defendant in that its ability to reconstruct the facts and prepare a defense to a new and completely different cause of action has been impaired by the lapse of some four years since the date of the incident. We see no abuse of discretion which would justify our intervention in Supreme Court’s ruling.

Order affirmed, with costs. Casey, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Diane Knowles, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Diane S. Knowles   
|    |  | Diane S. Knowles       
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer



May 11, 2005



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

Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, L.L.P.

Plaza of the Americas | 700 N. Pearl Street, Twenty

- Fifth Floor | Dallas, Texas 75201

- 2832 | (214) 871

- 8200 | Fax: (214) 871

- 8209 Michael A. Yanof

Direct Dial: (214) 871

- 8270

myanof@thompsoncoe.com Austin

Dallas

Houston

Los Angeles

Saint Paul

January 7, 2015

Lisa Matz Via E- Filing

Clerk of Court

Fifth Court of Appeals

600 Commerce St., Suite 200

Dallas, TX 75202-4658

Re: No. 05-14-01464- CV; Sheri Durham and Denise Jenkins, as Administrator of the

Estate of Jessica Haley Durham v. Children’s Medical Center of Dallas, Amy

Holland, CPNP, David W. Kines, FNP, Lawson Copley, M.D., J. Patrick Hieber,

M.D. and Timothy J. Rupp, M.D.

Dear Ms. Matz:

The Clerk’s Record and Supplemental Clerk’s Record are now on file with the Court.

Would you please provide a CD to me as one of the attorneys representing Appellee Amy

Holland, CPNP.

I appreciate your assistance, and please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Michael A. Yanof

Michael A. Yanof

cc: Kenneth Chaiken

Chaiken & Chaiken, P.C.

Legacy Town Center III

5801 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 440

Plano, Texas 75024

kchaiken@chaikenlaw.com

Counsel for Appellants ACCEPTED

05-14-01464-CV

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

1/7/2015 1:48:54 PM

LISA MATZ

CLERKJanuary 7, 2015

Page 2

Michelle E. Robberson

Jo hn A. Scully

Cory Sutker

Cooper & Scully, P .C.

900 Jackson St., Suite 100

Dallas, Texas 75202

michelle.robberson@cooperscull y.com

john.scully@cooperscully.com

cory.sutker@cooperscully.com

Counsel for Appellee Children’s Medical Center

David M. Walsh IV

Jeffrey Kershaw

Chamblee, Ryan, Kershaw & Anderson, P.C.

2777 Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1157

Dallas, Texas 75207

dmwalsh@chambleeryan.com

jmkershaw@chambleeryan.com

Counsel for Appellee Timothy J. Rupp, M.D.

Stan Thiebaud

Stinnett Thiebaud & Remington

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 4800

Dallas, Texas 75202

- 2701

sthiebaud@strlaw.net

Counsel for Appellee J. Patrick Hieber, M.D.

Ronald W. Johnson

Touchstone Bernays

4040 Renaissance Tower

1201 Elm Street

Dallas, Texas 75270

- 2196

Ron.johnson@tbjbs.com

Counsel for Appellee David W. Kines, FNP

C. Timothy Reynolds

Steed Dunnill Reynolds Murphy La mberth, LLP

1010 W. Ralph Hall Pkwy., 2nd Floor

Rockwall, TX 75032

timreynolds@steedlawfirm.com

Counsel for Appellee Lawson Copley, M.D.

2132888 v1

00093.198
EXHIBIT 32.1

CEO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with Form 10-Q of POZEN Inc. (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, John R. Plachetka, Chief Executive 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, to my knowledge:



| | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 2, 2009



/s/ John R. PlachetkaJohn R. Plachetka, Pharm.D.Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 11 (1)

                          GLOBAL ELECTION SYSTEMS INC.
                         Computation of Per-Share Income
                              Treasury Stock Method

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Period Ended            Period Ended
                                                  September 30, 1999      September 30, 1998
                                                     Three Months            Three Months
<S>                                               <C>                     <C>
Weighted average number of share outstanding           18,483,672           18,482,440

Total common and common equivalent shares              20,100,339           19,919,107

Net Income for the period                             $   667,817          $   255,906

Weighted average number of share outstanding           18,483,672           18,482,440

Earnings per share - basic                            $      0.04          $      0.01

Net Income for the period                             $   667,817          $   255,906

Total common and common equivalent shares              20,100,339           19,919,107

Earnings per share - fully diluted                    $      0.03          $      0.01

Earnings per share:
</TABLE>

Basic earnings per share is computed by dividing the net income for the period
by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the period.

Fully diluted earnings per share is computed by dividing the net income for the
period by the common and common equivalent shares outstanding for the period.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4417

CW Bearing USA, Inc:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel