alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SAFETY PRESSURE
RELIEF

COMPOUND PRESSURE GAUGE
SAMPLE POSITIONER ASSY

W/ (1) 10 PIN ELECTRICAL FEEDTHROUGH
& (3) BLANK PORTS.

(@)

REFRIGERATOR|
‘SRDK-305D

‘SHOWN OUT
OF POSITION )

1 19 PIN ELECTRICAL
FEEDTHROUGH

a 4/16 THERMOCOUPLE

GAS Vi

8 PIN ELECTRICAL
FEEDTHROUGH

EVACUATION VALVE
‘WITH NW-25 FLANGE

SAMPLE
1) THERM

25

1-14.25 0.0.

7.09 0.D.- Fi
LL
ha
110 00. AL
MULT LAYER

‘SUPER INSULATION

‘THERMOCOUPLE CLAMP —~]

12.0 0.0. AL —|

RADIATION
BAFFLES:

1.00

i

(2) 50 OHM HEATER & sD seNsor—_|

COPPER TO AL TRANSITION——__|
1.5 DIA. SAMPLE MOUNT W/ 50 OHM HEATER,

PROVISION FOR SENSOR &:
5/16-18 THREADED STUD X 0.38 LG

6.0 OD X .O31W (AL).

6.9 NEUTRON ZONE

7.0 0D X .O35W (AL).

250 mm SQUARE
BOTTOM FLANGE

035

NEUTRON ZONE SCALE

4X CLEAR HOLES FOR
#M6 SCREWS ON 9.05
SQ. CORNER

SYSTEM INCLUDES—

W/ (1) 10 PIN ELECTRICAL FEEDTHROUGH
Q

REVSIONS

mi [POINTE
‘A [CONFIGURATION cHOS: an 727)
[CONFIGURATION cHOS-

PORT

S—WAY EXCHANGE
/ALVE,

1/16 THERMOCOUPLE PORT

8 PIN ELECTRICAL
FEEDTHROUGH
POSITIONER ASSY

(OCOUPLE PORT &
(2) BLANK PORTS.

35.

ale
ma
|— 8.94 0.0. x .22W (AL)
r PT DEMOUNTABLE
INDIUM SEAL
n 2.5 OD. X .065W THERMOCOUPLE
LE}. (FHC COPPER) CLAMP \
rt ml _ |
1.75
15.50
4.00 |
ss *7° (4) 4-40 TAPPED HOLES
co | EQ SP ON PERIPHERY

(8) SAMPLE POSTIONER ASSY’S FOR 500K &

(8) SAMPLE POSTIONERS ASSY’S

FOR 800K

NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS. ARE IN INCHES

RVs] __ JANIS RESEARCH CO.
CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY [owray [ao [373/05] NALMNGTON, MAL
Tas ORAWNG ANO/oR WeoRUATION conraNeD [9% 87 ME SPECIAL SHI-950—4
RESEARGH COMPANY AN IS NOT TO Be = NON-OPTICAL HIGH TEMP.
&R BLEED To THRD PARTES WIMOUT THE SORE A
RESEARGH COMPANY, NC YE SANS —_ tal ‘b63-02-055|"8
Ea lee [eues/ie—[an Tet
Exhibit 13.1

eLong, Inc.

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT 0F 1934

In connection with the
Annual Report of eLong, Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas SooHoo, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, 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 of the Company as of December 31, 2005 and results of operations of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005.



/s/ Thomas SooHooName:

Thomas SooHooTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerDate:

June 29, 2006
#### Cecilio CRUZ; Teofista Cruz, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-73861.

Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.*

Decided Dec. 16, 2004.

Brian D. Lerner, Esq., Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner, Long Beach, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Virginia Lum, Anthony W. Norwood, Esq., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Cecilio and Teofista Cruz, natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition for re*601view of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motions to reconsider and to reopen their removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider or to reopen. *Cano-Merida v. INS,*311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration because the motion failed to identify errors of fact or law in the BIA’s decision. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (stating that a motion to reconsider “shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority”).

The BIA properly denied the Petitioners’ motion to reopen to proceed on their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture because they submitted no evidence estabhshing their prima facie eligibility. *See Bolshakov v. INS,*133 F.3d 1279, 1281 (9th Cir.1998).

We do not consider the Petitioners’ challenge to the BIA’s denial of their motion to reopen to proceed on their application for adjustment of status because they raised this issue for the first time in their reply brief. *See Bazuaye v. INS,*79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (“Issues raised for the first time in the reply brief are waived”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 491 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                 House Calendar No. 218
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 491

                          [Report No. 105-603]

 Providing for consideration of a concurrent resolution providing for 
 adjournment of the House and Senate for the Independence Day district 
                              work period.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 24, 1998

 Mr. Diaz-Balart, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
 Providing for consideration of a concurrent resolution providing for 
 adjournment of the House and Senate for the Independence Day district 
                              work period.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, to 
consider a concurrent resolution providing for adjournment of the House 
and Senate for the Independence Day district work period.




                                                 House Calendar No. 218

105th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 491

                          [Report No. 105-603]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of a concurrent resolution providing for 
 adjournment of the House and Senate for the Independence Day district 
                              work period.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 24, 1998

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
9666.

#### Jones *v.*Mallory Steamship Company.

Jenkins, J.

1. It is the duty of the master to furnish to the servants in his employ safe appliances for their labor, and a reasonably safe place in which to work.

2. This latter obligation does not require him to keep the place where they are employed in a safe condition at every moment of their work, so far as its safety depends on the due performance of that work by them and their fellow-servants. *Byrd*v. *Thompson,*146 *Ga.*300 (91 S. E. 100).

3. Where proper appliances are furnished, and an injury to a servant is occasioned, not by reason of a defect therein, but on account of the negligence of fellow-servants in failing to properly use them, the master is not liable. *Fraser*v. *Smith & Kelly Co.,*136 *Ga.*18 (70‘S. E. 792) ; *Henderson*v. *Ocean Steamship Co.,*15 *Ga. App.*790 (84 S. E. 230).

4. There being no allegation in the petition in this case charging negligence on the part of the defendant in not inspecting the gang-plank, the failure to properly secure which caused the plaintiff’s injuries, and it appearing from the testimony of the plaintiff himself that the placing and securing of the gang-plank was one of the ordinary duties of *188himself and his fellow-servants, the court did not err in excluding the following question and the plaintiff’s answer thereto: Question:

Decided January 14, 1919.

Action for damages; from Glynn superior court—Judge High-smith. January 24, 1918.

*Francis H. Harris, D. W. Krauss,*for plaintiff.

*Bennet, Twitty & Reese,*for defendant.

“Whose business was it to have fixed that gang-plank?” Answer: “It was our foreman’s business to see that it was fixed right.” But conceding that the master was negligent in not seeing that the gang-plank was properly secured, the plaintiff himself having testified that he could have discovered this by merely glancing at it before he stepped upon it, the court did not err in granting a nonsuit. *Ludd*v. *Wilkins,*118 *Co.*525 (45 S. E. 429) ; *Henderson*v. *Ocean Steamship Co.,*supra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

HYDRAFLOW INDUSTRIES LIMITED, 

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED 

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”,

Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-03661

Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman

Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby files this Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal, without prejudice, as to the following Defendant(s) identified on Schedule A of the 

Complaint:

NO. DEFENDANT

24 Amazing Top Deals

14 BewthU

7 Shop3667080 Store

96 cnstore88

186 yang-14

98 eastauspicious

75 Ancheer

174 xufenfenhe

339 MAGICSURVE

80 Healthy_living

123 racedigital

65 Yxw104187786

4 Henan Ocean Power Homewares Co., Ltd.

42 HOLLEuu

61 Lome1210

Case: 1:20-cv-03661 Document #: 40 Filed: 08/24/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:1279
DATED: August 24, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Keith A. Vogt

Keith A. Vogt (Bar No. 6207971)

Keith Vogt, Ltd.

111 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1700

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: 312-675-6079

E-mail: keith@vogtip.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Case: 1:20-cv-03661 Document #: 40 Filed: 08/24/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:1280
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document was electronically filed on August 24, 2020 with the Clerk of the Court using the 

CM/ECF system, which will automatically send an email notification of such filing to all registered 

attorneys of record.

/s/ Keith A. Vogt

Keith A. Vogt

Case: 1:20-cv-03661 Document #: 40 Filed: 08/24/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:1281
#### BOOE v. PASSERALLO

No. 197P97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 742

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 June 1997.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

CHRISTOPHER W. REED, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

KEVIN A. HESS, S.J., COURT OF 

COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND 

COUNTY, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 96 MM 2016 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 26th day of September, 2016, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Prohibition is DENIED. 

The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
#### David Elms *v.*Jesse Hunt and Others.

Arbitration apd Award — Views of Attorney for One Party — Award.

The fact that the views of the attorney for one of the parties to an arbitration may have affected the action of the arbitrators, is not ground for disturbing the award, when the other party could have also had an attorney.

Arbitration and Award — Common Law Arbitration.

A common law arbitration is as binding on the parties as if it had been made in pursuance of the statute.

Arbitration and Award — Equitable Relief.

A party who has 'submitted the question of a boundary line to arbitration and lost, cannot resort to a -court of equity for -relief.

Boundaries — Boundary Line — Parol Agreement.

A parol agreement fixing a dividing line is binding on the parties.

ARPEAD PROM B'UTDER CIRCUIT 'COURT.

January 20, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The award rendered at the instance of the parties to this controversy is a bar to the present proceeding. The object of this action is to settle the boundary of the lands owned by the appellant and *362appellees so as to fix the true dividing line between them. The parties long prior to the institution of the action made in writing, submitted this question to arbitration, and selected two of their neighbors as arbitrators. They reported in writing, specifying the boundary in accordance with the award. The parties were present with their witnesses and title papers, and no objection whatever made to the proceeding. There is no charge of fraud or improper conduct on the part of the arbitrators and their award seems to have been the result of the exercise of an impartial judgment on the facts before them. It is insisted that one of the appellees was an attorney at the time and that his view of the law influenced the action of the arbitrators. This is no reason for disturbing the award. The appellant should have had his attorney also, and was advised by the arbitrators to employ one before the investigation commenced. It was known by him that appellees had employed counsel, and if he was willing to- enter into the investigation without one it was his own fault. This is a. common law arbitration and is as much binding on the parties as if made in pursuance of the statute. *Overly’s Ex'r, v. Overly’s Devisees,*1 Met. 117. A'parol agreement fixing a dividing line is binding on the parties. 6 Bush 669. That the parties failed to look to the question of title is immaterial, still it does not appear that the deed offered by appellant was rejected on the question of boundary, but on the contrary, one of the arbitrators says it was taken into consideration as well as the other evidence.

*H. T. Clark, for appellant.*

*B. L. D. Guffy, for appellees.*

If the appellant intended resorting to- a court of equity to aid him in fixing their dividing line, he should not have submitted the question to arbitration. After he has done' so- and lost, he has no claims upon a court of equity for relief;

Judgment *affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF HAWKER PACIFIC AEROSPACE FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1998
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         552,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,136,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   165,000
<INVENTORY>                                 18,183,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            30,475,000
<PP&E>                                      36,910,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,676,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              66,638,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,774,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    21,108,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                66,638,000
<SALES>                                     13,667,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,667,000
<CGS>                                       10,470,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,470,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                18,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             648,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                687,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   259,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            428,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   428,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

 

JAMES D. ROBINSON, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) No. 1:20 CV 4270

v. )

) Hon. Mary M. Rowland

BRENDAN F. KELLY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

)

BRUCE DAVIDSON, et al., )

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors, )

)

v. )

)

BRENDAN F. KELLY, et al., )

)

Defendants in Intervention. )

NOTICE OF FILING 

 

To: Mary A. Johnston, Esq.

Office of the Illinois Attorney General 

100 West Randolph Street, 13th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60601

MJohnston@atg.state.il.us

Please take notice that on January 29, 2021, we caused to be filed with the 

Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division, PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO FILE OVERLENGTH 

BRIEF INSTANTER. 

 

Dated: January 29, 2021 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

/s/ David G. Sigale

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 71 Filed: 01/29/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:391
David G. Sigale (Atty. ID #6238103) 

Law Firm of David G. Sigale, P.C.

430 West Roosevelt Road, 

Wheaton, IL 60187 

630.452.4547

dsigale@sigalelaw.com

Gregory A. Bedell (Atty. ID# 6189762) 

Knabe & Bedell

33 North Dearborn Street 

10th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60602

312.977.9119

gbedell@kkbchicago.com

Jacob Huebert (Atty. ID# 6305339) 

Martha Astor (appearing pro hac vice)

Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the 

GOLDWATER INSTITUTE

500 E. Coronado Rd. 

Phoenix, AZ 85004

Telephone: (602) 462-5000 

jhuebert@goldwaterinstitute.org

litigation@goldwaterinstitute.org

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 71 Filed: 01/29/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:392
 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 

I, David G. Sigale, an attorney, certify that, on January 29, 2021, I 

electronically filed a copy of the PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO 

FILE OVERLENGTH BRIEF INSTANTER and this Notice of Filing and 

Certificate of Service with the Clerk of the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of Illinois using the CM/ECF system, which will send 

notification of the filing to the counsel of record at their email addresses on 

file with the Court.

/s/ David G. Sigale

David G. Sigale

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 71 Filed: 01/29/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:393
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.6


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We consent to the inclusion in this registration statement on 
Form S-1 of our report dated February 3, 1997, on our audit of the 
consolidated financial statements of Midcontinent Broadcasting Co. of 
Wisconsin, Inc. We also consent to the reference to our firm under the 
caption "Experts".



                                            COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
May 1, 1998
Handbook 133, Fourth Edition (2003) 

2002 Amendments 

The following table lists the laws and regulations amended by the 87th NCWM. As appropriate, the text on

the cited pages indicates the changes to the section or paragraph as "Added 2002" or "Amended 2002."

Unless otherwise noted, the effective date of the information “Added” or “Amended” in 2002 is January 1,

2003. 

L&R Committee 

Item No. 

Chapter, Section, 

And Title 

Action Page

250-1 Chapter 1. “Retail” Amended 1

250-2

Chapter 2. Section 2.3.:

“How are the tare sample 

and the tare weight of the

packaging material

determined?” 

Amended the title question and the 

text in Step 2 14-15 

250-3

Chapter 2. Section 2.3.:

“When and where is unused 

dry tare used, and how is it

used to determine an

average tare weight?”

Amended 15

250-4

Chapter 1. Section 1.2.:

“Why do we allow for 

moisture loss or gain?”

Amended the title question and added

new paragraph 3 

250-5

Chapter 2. Section 2.3.:

“How is the average error 

for moisture allowance 

corrected?”

Amended to add new paragraphs 19-20 

Handbook 133, Fourth Edition (2003)

2002 Editorial Corrections 

Chapter, Section, 

And Title 

Action Page

Chapter 2. Section 2.6.:

“How is the net weight of 

glazed raw seafood and fish

determined?”

Generalized Step 3 to seafood 24 

Appendix A, Table 2-3. Corrected typographical error in

column headed “Ratio of Rc/Rt” A-3 

Appendix E, Random

Package Report – Example 

Form

Corrected Blocks 22 and 23 E-3 

vii
Exhibit 13.1

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code),
the undersigned officer of LG Display Co., Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of Korea (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Form 20-F) fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

Date: June 23, 2009



/s/ YOUNG SOO KWONYoung Soo KwonRepresentative Director/ President and Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to LG Display Co., Ltd. and will be retained by LG Display Co., Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Mish International Monetary Inc.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04577

Honorable Gary Feinerman

Vega Capital London, Ltd., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, September 22, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gary Feinerman:Motions to appear pro hac

vice [12], [13], and [14] are granted. Mailed notice.(jlj, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.