alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 81 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 18408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10258]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
United States Geological Survey

Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC); Public Meetings of the 
FGDC Facilities Working Group

agency: U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.

action: Notice of meetings.

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

summary: This notice is to invite public participation in meetings of 
the FGDC Facilities Working Group. The major topics for these meetings 
are: development of a Facility/Installation ID standard and development 
of a utilities data dictionary.

time and place: 13 May 1996, from 1:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m.; 17 June 
1996, from 1:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m.; and 15 July 1996, from 1:00 p.m. 
until 4:00 p.m. The meetings will be held at Headquarters U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, in Room 8222D of the Pulaski Building, 20 
Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. The Pulaski building is 
located just a few blocks west of Union Station.

for further information contact: Jennifer Fox, FGDC Secretariat, U.S. 
Geological Survey, 590 National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, 
Reston, Virginia 22091; telephone (703) 648-5514; facsimile (703) 648-
5755; Internet ``[email protected]''. Minutes of meetings are available by 
clicking on the Facilities Working Group at the FGDC Internet address 
http://fgdc.er.usgs.gov.

supplementary information: The FGDC is a committee of Federal Agencies 
engaged in geospatial activities. The FGDC Facilities Working Group 
specifically focuses on geospatial data issues related to facilities 
and facility management. A facility is an entity with location, 
deliberately established as a site for designated activities. A 
facility database might describe a factory, a military base, a college, 
a hospital, a power plant, a fishery, a national park, an office 
building, a space command center, or a prison. The database for a 
complex facility may describe multiple functions or missions, multiple 
buildings, or even a county, town, or city. The objectives of the 
Working Group are to: promote standards of accuracy and currentness in 
facilities data that are financed in whole or in party by Federal 
funds; exchange information on technological improvements for 
collecting facilities data; encourage the Federal and non-Federal 
communities to identify and adopt standards and specifications for 
facilities data; and promote the sharing of facilities data among 
Federal and non-Federal organizations.

    Dated: April 16, 1996.
Richard E. Witmer,
Acting Chief, National Mapping Division.
[FR Doc. 96-10258 Filed 4-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE, 4310-31-M
```
Exhibit 4.5, Nenad Bogdanovich Conversion Agreement, 10/17/2006


    
      

      

    

    Exhibit
      4.5

     

     

     

    
      CONVERSION
        AGREEMENT

      


      This
        Agreement executed on October 17, 2006 is made by and between Cobalis Corp.,
        a
        Nevada corporation (the “Company”) with its principal place of business located
        at 2445 McCabe Way, Suite 150, Irvine CA 92614 and Nenad Bogdanovic (the
        “Consultant”), with an address at Sekspirova 2, 21000 Novi Sad,
        Serbia.

      


      NOW
        THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the covenants and
        obligations set forth below and for other good and valuable consideration,
        the
        receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree
        as
        follows:

      


      Consulting
        Fees Conversion:
        The
        Consultant has rendered 1 (one) yearly invoice to the Company totaling $1,425
        (one thousand four hundred twenty-five) for his professional services of
        maintaining the corporate website from October 1, 2006 to October 1, 2007.
        The
        Parties hereby agree to convert this obligation of the Company into 1,500
        (one
        thousand five hundred) fully-paid and non-assessable free trading shares
        upon
        the execution of this Agreement. This shall be at the conversion rate of
        $0.95
        per share. The Company shall immediately issue an S-8 registration with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission in order to fulfill its obligation to
        the
        Consultant.

      


      IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the
        date
        first written above.

       

      
        	The Company
                (Cobalis,
                Corp.)	 	 	The Consultant
                (Nenad
                Bogdanovic)
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Chaslav
                Radovich	 	 	/s/ 
	
                
                  

                

                Chaslav Radovich

                President

              	 	 	
                
Nenad
                Bogdanovic


      

       

       

      1
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o . 0 9

- 1 1 0 9 6

L & C C O N S U L T A N T S , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e v . A S H P E T R O L E U M ; J A M E S W

. P E A K ; G E N E H

. I R W I N , D e f e n d a n t s - A p p e l l a n t s

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o . 3 : 0 7

- C V

- 1 9 0 4

B e f o r e W I E N E R , G A R Z A , a n d P R A D O , C i r c u i t J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M : * A F F I R M E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R
. R

. 4 7

. 6

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Decem ber 1 0, 2 010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C I R . R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion s hould not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R . R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-11096 Document: 00511317925 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2010
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

OCIIALD c. MANN 

*.1-- . ..uAL June 5, 1939 

Eonorable A, J, Brym, Jr, 

Crlmlnal Dirtriot Attorney 

Elllsboro, Texas 

purpose when raid 

atea prior to the 

oseds are aotually 

on the above 

bridly, as f 

6, requesting our opinloa 

in raots whioh are, 

,000 road bond irsue for tlie 

ing and operating maoaaamlred, 

lkes, or in aid bheraof, 8 

oooparatlon with fhe Works 

that prior to the rale of the 

that the election had raaultrd 

tain W. P. A, projeot.6 whloh wwre~lntendod 

oaontyq.Lde road oonstruotion oontemplatad 

e. This a&ion lnourred oortaln bills or 

money was aotually~a~allable Iron the sale 

before thr appointment cbf a road sriperintsnbed by. the special Hill Oounty road’law, being 

Houss Bill No. 500, Ohaptsr 53 of the Speolal Lawa of Texas, 

passed by the Thirty-sixth Legislature. 

It ooours to un that the anmer to this question must 

ultimatsly tost upon the datarmlnation of whether the wo& ~OIZN 
Honorable A. J. Bxyan, Jr., Juno 5, 1939, Faga g 

was suoh aa would hare 

have been l armntial to . . . . . _ _ 

been gone 19 anj l yent or that would 

the l aaoarpllrhment of the purpose for 

wnlon tne ctonas were v0t0a. It tha I*terrlnbtlon 18 in iavor 

of the nooossltp of muoh work having been dolie to thr ultimate 

aooompllahment of the lntendod purpose of the bond laaue, than 

it la the oplnlon of thlr department that the bill8 inourrad, 

as reoited in rour letter, are properly ohargaable against the 

p?oeeda of the bond sale. Otherwlae, such obligation would 

be & oharge only against the road and brlbge fund of the 

county. 

In an6wer to rour roooixl question, it lr our opinion 

that Sollowing the appolntwnt OS the road Buperlntendent, it 

beoomom hl,m duty to detrtinr.the propriety ot the work done, 

a na ii h a finds l mno to hate been work 8uoh a# he would hnve 

nquired in the alrohar e 

pr;rsly approve 8uoh b fl 

of hIa autlea or oiilae, than ho aan 

11 or obligation in tjmt brhalf inl 

Tha question8 rubmlttod are prlmarll~ que8tlona of 

iaot rather than of law, and onoo the facts are determined we 

think the Sor8going oonolualon 08~1 propbrlr bo follqwed by the 

County AuQltor in allowing or dl8allowing the paymnt of suoh 

blllm. 

Very truly yourn 

All’ORNEY OENXFAL OF TEXB 

A!X"l'O?UGXdENERAL OFTEXAS 

I
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


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


     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned
officers of Finlay Fine Jewelry Corporation (the "Company") does hereby certify
with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period
ended January 31, 2004 (the "Report") 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.



Date: April 15, 2004


                                                /s/ Bruce E. Zurlnick
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Bruce E. Zurlnick
                                                Senior Vice President, Treasurer
                                                and Chief Financial Officer







The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 3 (Thursday, January 4, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-109]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353]


Philadelphia Electric Company; Correction

    The December 6, 1995, Federal Register contained a ``Notice of 
Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating Licenses,'' for the 
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. This notice corrects the 
notice published in the Federal Register on December 6, 1995, (60 FR 
62500). The ``Amendment Nos.'' Section should read ``105 and 69.''

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of December 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John F. Stolz,
Director, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor Projects-I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-109 Filed 1-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5634 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5634

 To prohibit institutions of higher education from mandating COVID-19 
                    vaccines for students or staff.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 21, 2023

 Mr. Good of Virginia (for himself, Mr. Ogles, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Higgins 
     of Louisiana, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Rouzer, Ms. Tenney, Mr. 
 McCormick, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. 
 Clyde, Mr. Babin, Mr. Davidson, Mr. Moore of Alabama, Mr. Cloud, and 
  Mr. Guest) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit institutions of higher education from mandating COVID-19 
                    vaccines for students or staff.

    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 ``No Vaccine Mandates in Higher 
Education Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON COVID-19 VACCINE MANDATES IN HIGHER EDUCATION.

    (a) Prohibition.--No Federal funds may be made available to any 
institution of higher education that requires its students or staff to 
receive a COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of enrollment or employment, 
or receiving any benefit, service, or contract.
    (b) Institution of Higher Education Defined.--In this Act, the term 
``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given the term in 
section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002).
                                 <all>
```
#### Lance P. CRULL, Respondent, v. Susan D. CRULL, Appellant.

No. WD 51203.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 7, 1996.

*159M. Corinne Corley, Corley Law Firm, Kansas City, for appellant.

Seott K. Friedrich, HarrisonviUe, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and FENNER, C.J., and ELLIS, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Susan D. Crull (Wife) appeals from an order of the Circuit Court of Cass County modifying the visitation and child support provisions of the decree that dissolved her marriage to Lance P. Crull (Husband). Perceiving no jurisprudential value in a published opinion, we enter this summary order. However, the parties have been provided a memorandum opinion explaining our decision.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
Gregory Lykiardopoulos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Triton Distribution Systems, Inc. on Form 10-QSB/A for the fiscal
quarter ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Triton
Distribution Systems, Inc.









Date:
July 8,
2008                           By:/s/Gregory
Lykiardopoulos


Gregory Lykiardopoulos


Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth P. Ducey, Jr., President and Chief Financial Officer of Markland
Technologies, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Markland Technologies,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement 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
information included 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;


DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2004                     /S/ KENNETH P. DUCEY, JR.
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           KENNETH P. DUCEY, JR.
                                           CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
**Exhibit 9.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements of Acergy S.A. (formerly Stolt Offshore S.A., a Luxembourg company) and its subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form S-8, File Nos. 33-85168, 333-09292, 333-74321, 333-124983 and 333-124997 and on FormF-3 and Form F-3/A, File No. 333-86288 of our report dated April 6, 2005 on the financial statements of the EPIC JV for the year ended November 30, 2004, appearing in this annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended November 30,2005. 

 

/s/ Deloitte 

Deloitte Statsautoriserte Revisorer AS 

Stavanger, Norway 

2 May 2006
**EXHIBIT
      31.2**




CERTIFICATION






I,
      Louis
      P. Nunes, certify that:






1. I
      have reviewed this September 30, 2007 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of
      Lightspace Corporation;




2. Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement 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 information
      included 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 and
      maintaining 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 ensure that
      material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
      subsidiary, 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 controls and
      procedures and presented in this report my 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 internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
      quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
      affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.




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 registrant’s board of directors:




(a) 
      All significant deficiencies and material 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 other employees
      who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting.






November
      14, 2007




/s/
                Louis P. NunesLouis
                P. NunesChief
                Accounting Officer
#### Bank of Commerce *v.*Mallicoat *et al.*

No. 2842.

September 30, 1922.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Wright. Chattooga superior court. September 1, 1921.

*J. M. Bellah*and *Maddox, Lipscomb $ Matthews,*for plaintiff.

*John D. & E. 8. Taylor*and *Benny & Wright,*for defendants.

Atkinson, J.

1. In the light of the charge to the jury in its entirety, the exceptions to certain portions of the charge are without merit; as are also the assignments of error upon the refusal of* certain written requests to charge, it appearing from the whole charge in the record that the principles of law contained in the requests were sufficiently and substantially contained in the instructions given.

2. Under repeated rulings of this court, to make a valid assignment of error on the admission of evidence such evidence should be set out in the ground of the motion for new trial, either literally or in substance. A statement in the ground of the motion that the evidence admitted over the objection of movant appears in the brief of the evidence will not suffice. Applying this rule, the fifth ground of the amended motion for new trial presents no question for decision.

3. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and there was no error in refusing a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### Gary Joseph HERTZOG, Appellant, v. Dana Kay HERTZOG, Respondent.

No. WD 43500.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 16, 1991.

Charles Edward Weedman, Jr., Harrison-ville, for appellant.

*766Richard J. Koury, II, Independence, for respondent.

Before SHANGLER, P.J., and KENNEDY and FENNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of motion to modify dissolution decree as to custody.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 7, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00032

- CR

Sebastian GARCIA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR4903 Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On February 13 , 2018, appellant filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file a notice of appeal . In his motion, appellant states he is appealing the trial court’s judgment revoking his community supervision, and he failed to timely file a notice of appeal or motion for

new trial

.

Rule 26.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the day sentence is imposed or within 90 days after the day

sen tence is imposed if the defendant timely filed a motion for new trial. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2. A motion for new trial is timely filed if the defendant files the motion before, but no later than 30 days after, the date when the trial court imposes sentence. Id . R. 21.4. If the f iling of a notice of appeal or motion for new trial is by mail

, then it is considered timely filed if the document is received within ten days after the filing deadline so long as it was : (1) sent to the proper clerk by

the United S tates Postal Service; (2) placed in an envelope properly addressed and stamped; and (3) deposited in the mail on or before the last day of filing

. Id . R. 9.2.

A review of the clerk’ s record reflects that sentence was imposed on December 12, 2017.

The record does not contain a motion for new trial; therefore , the notice of appeal was due on or before January 11, 2018

. See i d. R. 26.2. The clerk’s record further demonstrates that a pro se notice of appeal was filed in our court on January 17, 2018

, which was within ten days after the filing deadline . Moreover, the clerk’s record indicates that the envelope containing the notice of appeal was sent to the proper clerk, properly addressed to our court, and deposited in the mail onJanuary 11, 2018, the last day of filing. See id

. R. 9.2 ; see also id. R. 25.2 (providing if notice of

appeal is received by court of appeals, clerk of court shall immediately record date notice was received and send notice to trial court clerk)

. Therefore, appellant’s notic e of appeal is deemed timely.

Based on the foregoing , we DENY appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal as MOOT

.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 7th day of March, 2018

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle

Clerk of Court