alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14957]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6852]

[[Page 14957]]

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Division of Research Grants; Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
Division of Research Grants Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting:

    Purpose/Agenda: To review individual grant applications.
    Name of SEP: Multidisciplinary Sciences.
    Date: April 7, 1995.
    Time: 9:30 a.m.
    Place: Hyatt Regency, Bethesda, MD.
    Contact Person: Dr. Catharine Wingate, Scientific Review Admin. 
5333 Westbard Avenue, Room 357, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-7295.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in sec. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by 
the grant review cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 14, 1995.
Margery G. Grubb,
Senior Committee Management Specialist, National Institutes of Health.
[FR Doc. 95-6852 Filed 3-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 2427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-607]



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


NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

TIME AND PLACE: 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, January 18, 1995.

PLACE: The Board Room, 5th Floor, 490 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, 
DC 20594.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

6511  Safety Study: Factors That Affect Fatigue in Heavy Truck 
Accidents.
6362A  Pipeline Accident Report: Rupture of Texas Eastern 
Transmission Corporation's 36-inch-diameter Gas Transmission 
Pipeline and Subsequent Fire, Edison, New Jersey, March 23, 1994.

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202) 382-0660.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Bea Hardesty, (202) 382-6525.

    Dated: January 5, 1995.
Bea Hardesty,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-607 Filed 1-5-95; 3:45 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-P
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4254 

AN ACT 

To amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to clarify 

a provision relating to certain contents of registrations 

under that Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 4254 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Disclosing Foreign In3 fluence in Lobbying Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF CONTENTS OF REGISTRATION. 

5 Section 4(b) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 

6 (2 U.S.C. 1603(b)) is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

8 end; and 

9 (2) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘the offense.’’ 

10 and inserting the following: ‘‘the offense; and 

11 ‘‘(8) notwithstanding paragraph (4), the name 

12 and address of each government of a foreign country 

13 (including any agency or subdivision of a foreign 

14 government, such as a regional or municipal unit of 

15 government) and foreign political party, other than 

16 the client, that participates in the direction, plan17 ning, supervision, or control of any lobbying activi18 ties of the registrant.’’. 

Passed the Senate September 29, 2022. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4254 

AN ACT 

To amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to 

registrations under that Act. clarify a provision relating to certain contents of
---

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, that to my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three months ended September 30, 2009 (the “Form 10-Q”), to which this certificate is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.




Date: November 6, 2009
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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                            238
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   238
<CGS>                                              124
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      124
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,136
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (32)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (32)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (32)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1952

Brooks Instrument LLC:

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2834

Speck Pumps-Pool Products, 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/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions.

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 products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-30487 04-MAY-2012 NO. SCWC-30487 02:20 PM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I GREGORY NAGAO, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant,

vs. STATE OF HAWAI ' I, Respondent/Respondent-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. 30487; S.P.P. NO. 09-1-0093 (CR. NO. 94-1501)) ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and McKenna, JJ., and Circuit Judge Chang, in place of Duffy, J., recused) The Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on March 22, 2012 by Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant Gregory Nagao is hereby rejected. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, May 4, 2012.
Emmanuel G. Guerrero, for petitioner/ petitioner-appellant, on the application. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Gary W. B. Chang
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR EBS BUILDING, L.L.C. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001059926
<NAME> EBS BUILDING, L.L.C.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,579
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      640
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               120,676
<PP&E>                                      20,453,401
<DEPRECIATION>                               (673,857)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,900,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          665,693
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,234,527
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               190,900,220
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,751,698
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,188,754
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,239
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (438,295)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (438,295)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (438,295)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2 

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

 

I, Jerry C. Young, as Chief Financial Officer of Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc., certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Da-Lite Screen Company,Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors: 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: February 22, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 41 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11633-11634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5143]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
43 CFR Public Land Order 7120

[AK-932-1430-01; F-031038]


Revocation of Public Land Order No. 743; Alaska

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Public land order.

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

SUMMARY: This order revokes in its entirety a public land order, as it 
affects approximately 1.9 acres of public land withdrawn for use by the 
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, for building 
purposes in Fairbanks. The [[Page 11634]] land is no longer needed for 
the purpose for which it was withdrawn. This action also allows the 
conveyance of the land to the State of Alaska, if such land is 
otherwise available. Any land described herein that is not conveyed to 
the State is opened and will be subject to the terms and conditions of 
Public Land Order No. 5180, as amended, and any other withdrawal of 
record.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 2, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue A. Wolf, BLM Alaska State Office, 
222 W. 7th Avenue, No. 13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7599, 907-271-5477.
    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior 
by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 
43 U.S.C. 1714 (1988), and by Section 17(d)(1) of the Alaska Native 
Claims Settlement Act 43 U.S.C. 1616(d)(1) (1988), it is ordered as 
follows:
    1. Public Land Order No. 743, which withdrew public land for 
building purposes in Fairbanks, is hereby revoked as it affects the 
following described land:

Fairbanks Meridian

    A parcel of land located within lot 2, sec. 5, T. 1 S., R. 1 W., 
more particularly described as:

Beginning at the southeast corner of said lot 2;
Thence, west along the southerly line of said lot 2, 530 feet, more 
or less, to the southerly line of College Road;
Thence, northeasterly along the southerly line of said College Road 
610 feet, more or less, to the east line of said lot 2;
Thence, south along the east line of said lot 2, 310 feet, more or 
less, to the point of beginning.

    The area described contains approximately 1.90 acres.

    2. The State of Alaska application for selection made under Section 
6(a) of the Alaska Statehood Act of July 7, 1958, 48 U.S.C. note prec. 
21 (1988), and under Section 906(e) of the Alaska National Interest 
Lands Conservation Act, 43 U.S.C. 1635(e) (1988), for the land 
described above, becomes effective without further action by the State 
upon publication of this public land order in the Federal Register, if 
such land is otherwise available. Land not conveyed to the State will 
be subject to the terms and conditions of Public Land Order No. 5180, 
as amended, and any other withdrawal of record.

    Dated: February 16, 1995.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 95-5143 Filed 3-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 15

- 00486

- CV

Elgin TRACY , Adolph Tracy, and Travis Morgan,

Appellants

v.

Edward W. CHAMRAD Jr.,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial Dis trict Court, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15

- 05

- 0240

- CVW

Honorable Russell H. Wilson, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 16, 2015

DISMISSED

Appellant s filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. Appellee was served with a copy of

Appellants’ motion, but Appellee has not filed a response . Therefore, we grant the motion and

dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 4 2.1(a)( 1 ). Costs of this appeal are taxed against

Appellant. See id. R. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM
#### RAEFORD WHITLEY v. HARRY L. WADE.

(Filed 14 January, 1960.)

Appeal by defendant from *Clark, J.,*March Term, 1959, of Johnston.

This action was instituted by the plaintiff to recover damages to his Ford automobile in the alleged sum of $1,480.00, resulting from a collision between said automobile and an Oldsmobile owned and operated by the defendant and caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant.

The collision occurred about 5:00 p.m. on 20 April 1958 on the highway leading from Wendell to Smithfield, at or near the intersection of the said highway with the highway leading from Clayton to Wilson. The plaintiff was traveling in a southerly direction on the dominant highway toward Smithfield; the defendant was traveling in an easterly direction toward Wilson and entered the Wendell-Smithfield road headed toward Wendell.

The defendant set up a cross-action in his answer for damages to his Oldsmobile in the sum of $1,034.66.

The plaintiff’s evidence tends to show that the defendant cut to his left before reaching the intersection of said roads and drove across a paved area in front of Barnes’ Store and entered the dominant highway north of the intersection at an angle of about 45 degrees and drove into the path of plaintiff’s automobile.

The defendant’s evidence tends to show that he stopped at a stop sign placed on the servient highway about 30 feet from the intersection of the servient and dominant highways; that he stopped again before turning left at the intersection and then proceeded northwardly toward Wendell for about 90 feet on the dominant highway, when plaintiff approached him on the defendant’s side of the road and hit the right front of his car resulting in substantial damages to both vehicles.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1,480.00. Judgment was entered on the verdict, and the defendant appeals, assigning error.

*708E. *J. Wellons, Wood & Spence, Robert A. Spence for plaintiff.*

*Smith, Leach, Anderson & Dor sett for defendant.*

Peb Curiam.

This was a case for the twelve. The evidence was in sharp conflict — in fact, irreconcilably so. The jury accepted the plaintiff’s version of how the collision occurred. We have carefully examined all the defendant’s assignments of error and the exceptions on which they are based, and, in our opinion, they present no prejudicial error of sufficient magnitude to justify a new trial. Moreover, no new or novel question of law is involved in the appeal.

In the trial below there is in law

No error.