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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

          - [Docket No. 14-15]

Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (Commission) by Ngobros and Company Nigeria Limited (NCNL), hereinafter “Complainant,” against Ocean Cargo Link, LLC (OCL) and Kingston Ansah, hereinafter “Respondents.” Complainant states that it is a Nigerian Limited Liability Company. Complainant alleges that Respondent OCL is a license ocean freight forwarder and non-vessel-operating common carrier and Respondent Kingston Ansah is a “member of OCL” and “has utilized OCL as his alter egos [sic].”

Complainant alleges that Respondents have violated the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. 41102(c), in connection with the failed shipment of three vehicles from the United States to Nigeria. Complainant alleges that Respondent shipped the vehicles to the wrong destination resulting in the loss of the vehicles.

Complainant seeks an Order holding that Respondents violated § 41102(c); an Order compelling Respondents “to make reparations to Complainant NCNL in the amount of $180,628.66 for shipping its goods intentionally or unintentionally to a wrong destination and abandoning it there”; “attorney's fees, interests and costs and expenses incurred in this matter”; and “such other and further relief as the Commission deems just and proper.”

                    The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's Electronic Reading Room at                     *www.fmc.gov/​14-15.*

This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative Law Judges. The initial decision of the presiding officer in this proceeding shall be issued by December 1, 2015 and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by June 1, 2016.

Karen V. Gregory,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-28538 Filed 12-4-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 14, 2024

NO. 03-24-00424-CV

Mohammad Reza Assadi, Appellant

v.

Amir Batoei; Family AB Austin Feb 5, LP; and Lee Ab Land, LLC, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES KELLY AND THEOFANIS

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION –

OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on March 29, 2024. Having reviewed 

the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, the Court 

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this 

appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwight Delinor EPPS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-4655.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 24, 2001.

Decided May 14, 2001.

*112J. Christopher Clemens, Sr., Clemens & Clemens, P.C., Salem, VA, for appellant.

Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Anthony P. Giorno, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, VA, for appellee.

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Dwight Delinor Epps appeals his conviction and sentence of seventy-seven months’ imprisonment for the strong arm robbery of John Crenshaw in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2111 (1994). Epps challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying the conviction. We review the record in the light most favorable to the government to determine if there is substantial evidence to support the conviction. *Glasser v. United States,*315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). Circumstantial as well as direct evidence is considered, and the government is allowed the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to be established. *See United States v. Tresvant,*677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir.1982). We have reviewed the record and affirm the conviction and sentence.

Epps and Crenshaw are patients of the Salem Veterans Administration Medical Center. A volunteer observed Epps speak sternly to Crenshaw, lead him into the men’s restroom by placing a hand on the back of Crenshaw’s neck and a hand on his arm, and shove Crenshaw against a wall. The volunteer then observed Crenshaw withdrawing his billfold and giving Epps five dollars. Government witnesses testified that Epps is a large, overbearing man, while Crenshaw is a timid, gentle man who often does not speak. Crenshaw testified he had given Epps $605 over the previous months. Crenshaw testified he did not want to give Epps money, but was afraid Epps would reach into Crenshaw’s pocket and take it himself. Following Epps’ arrest, Epps’ lawyer tendered a check for $605 to Crenshaw and asked him to sign an affidavit stating the monies taken by Epps were loans and had been repaid in full.

Epps argues the evidence is insufficient to establish a robbery by force or threat of force. He further contends the exchanged funds were loans that have now been repaid in full. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we find the evidence of intimidation and force to be sufficient to support Epps’ conviction. We therefore affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court *113and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4051

To amend title 38, United States Code, to permit eligible veterans to receive 

direct access to chiropractic care. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2004

Mr. FILNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to permit eligible 

veterans to receive direct access to chiropractic care.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Better Access to Chiro5 practors to Keep our Veterans Healthy (Back Our Vet6 erans Health) Act’’. 
2

•HR 4051 IH 

1 SEC. 2. EXPANDED CHIROPRACTOR SERVICES AVAILABLE 

2 TO VETERANS. 

3 (a) MEDICAL SERVICES.—Paragraph (6) of section 

4 1701 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by add5 ing at the end the following new subparagraph: 

6 ‘‘(G) Chiropractic services.’’. 

7 (b) REHABILITATIVE SERVICES.—Paragraph (8) of 

8 such section is amended by inserting ‘‘chiropractic,’’ after 

9 ‘‘counseling,’’. 

10 (c) PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES.—Paragraph 

11 (9) of such section is amended—

12 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) 

13 through (K) as subparagraphs (G) through (L), re14 spectively; and 

15 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the fol16 lowing new subparagraph (F): 

17 ‘‘(F) periodic and preventative chiropractic ex18 aminations and services;’’. 

19 SEC. 3. DIRECT ACCESS FOR VETERANS TO CHIROPRACTIC 

20 SERVICES. 

21 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 17 of title 38, United 

22 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1710B 

23 the following new section: 

24 ‘‘§ 1710C. Direct access to chiropractic services 

25 ‘‘(a) The Secretary shall permit eligible veterans to 

26 receive needed medical services, rehabilitative services, and 
3

•HR 4051 IH 

1 preventative health services from a licensed doctor of 

2 chiropractic on a direct access basis at the election of the 

3 eligible veteran, if such services are within the State scope 

4 of practice of such doctor of chiropractic. 

5 ‘‘(b) The Secretary shall not discriminate among li6 censed health-care providers in the determination of need7 ed services.’’. 

8 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

9 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting 

10 after the item relating to section 1710B the following new 

11 item:

‘‘1710C. Direct access to chiropractic services.’’.

Æ
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   
     We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to
the use of our report dated January 16, 1998 (except Note 19, as to which the
date is February 10, 1998), with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Cooperative Computing Holding Company, Inc. and our
report dated January 16, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Triad Systems Corporation, in Amendment No. 2 to the Registration
Statement (Form S-1 No. 333-49389) and related Prospectus of Cooperative
Computing, Inc. for the registration of $100 million of 9% Senior Subordinated
Notes due 2008.




                                                /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Austin, Texas
July 24, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          40,664
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  175,661
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,983)
<INVENTORY>                                    169,532
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               401,201
<PP&E>                                         274,964
<DEPRECIATION>                               (122,917)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,186,953
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          181,673
<BONDS>                                      1,027,563
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           26,668
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   (220,997)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 (220,996)
<SALES>                                        239,309
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                          154,293
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,850
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,388
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,592
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,222)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,924
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,146)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    193
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,867)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
exv10w6



 





Exhibit 10.6




THIRD AMENDMENT

TO THE 1996 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

OF

BALLY TOTAL FITNESS HOLDING CORPORATION





	1.	 	Section 3 of the Plan is hereby amended by changing the number of the aggregate Shares
subject to the Plan from three million six hundred thousand (3,600,000) Shares to four million
six hundred thousand (4,600,000) Shares.
	 
	2.	 	This Third Amendment shall be effective as of June 10, 1999.
____________________________________

United States Department of Commerce 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For:

Ohio 

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international system of units (SI), maintains a documented calibration program, documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented measurement procedures, successfully completed training and proficiency tests, submitted a quality management system, and has demonstrated suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on this certificate.

The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State 

Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025:2017.

Scope 2024 

Katrice Lippa, Chief

NIST Office of Weights and Measures

Effective Dates: 2024-02-01 to 2025-02-01

Mass Echelon II Volume Transfer, II Time

30 kg to 1 mg 1000 gal to 5 gal Stopwatches

50 lb to 0.001 lb Volume Transfer, II LPG  24 h

8 oz to 0.015625 oz 100 gal

Mass Echelon III

1000 kg to 1 mg

5000 lb to 0.001 lb

8 oz to 0.015625 oz

Weight Carts

6000 lb to 3000 lb

(Rev.: September 2021)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24
- 0024 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. SHANE WAYNE STANLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 3 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 27 2024

08/27/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0024
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 99.6

             
                                                          
                                  CONTACT: James W. Swent
                                           Chief Executive Officer
                                           American Pad & Paper Co.
                                           (972) 733-6200
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                      
                                           
                                           Robert P. Jones/Theresa Schillero
                                           Stan Froelich -Press
                                           (212) 850-5600
                                           Ken Pieper
                                           (972) 663-9390
                                           Morgen-Walke Associates
             

                         AMERICAN PAD & PAPER RECEIVES
                         30-DAY WAIVER FROM BANK GROUP

         DALLAS, Texas, July 9, 1998 --American Pad & Paper Company (NYSE:AGP)
today announced that its bank group has given the Company a 30-day waiver while
it seeks to negotiate a permanent amendment to its current lending agreement.
Based on preliminary second quarter results, the Company is in violation of
certain financial covenants of the current facility.  The Company expects to
report second quarter results within the next two weeks.

American Pad & Paper Co., which invented the legal pad in 1888, is a leading
manufacturer and marketer of paper-based office products in North America.  The
Company manufactures and distributes writing pads, file folders, machine
papers, envelopes and other office products.  Name brands include:  Ampad,
Century, Embassy, Gold Fibre, Huxley, Karolton, Kent, Peel & Seel, SCM,
Williamhouse and World Fibre.

This release contains forward-looking statements to future financial results.
Actual results may differ significantly as a result of factors over which the
Company has no control, including the strength of domestic and foreign
economies, slower than anticipated sales growth, price and product competition,
and increases in raw material prices.  Additional information which could
affect the Company's financial results is included in the Company's prospectus
on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
SRM Everyday use 

calibrant 

• Run SRM as the standard in a calibration curve and treat 

your everyday use calibrant as an unknown. 

• Write the new – SRM assigned – value on the everyday use 

calibrant tube 

• Use this new – SRM assigned– NIST traceable value for 

your everyday quantifications 

• When changing lots of everyday use calibrant, repeat the 

above procedure to assign a NIST traceable value to the 

new lot 

How to use SRM2366: 

Assign value to
Exhibit 23


                           INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
333-42940 and 333-42940-01 of The May Department Stores Company on Form S-3 and
Registration Statements Nos. 333-59792, 333-76227, 333-00957, and 333-103352 of
The May Department Stores Company on Form S-8 of our report dated February 12,
2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements of The May Department
Stores Company and subsidiaries as of and for the year ended February 1, 2003
(which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs
relating to (1) the adoption of a new accounting principle and (2) the
application of procedures relating to certain other disclosures and
reclassifications of financial statement amounts related to the 2001 and 2000
consolidated financial statements that were audited by other auditors who have
ceased operations and for which we have expressed no opinion or other form of
assurance other than with respect to such disclosures and reclassifications)
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The May Department Stores
Company for the year ended February 1, 2003.




/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
March 27, 2003
NIST Fundamentals of Uncertainty Analysis Short Course

April 28-30, 2015, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm

Building 222, Room A228-232

Instructors: Will Guthrie and Hung-kung Liu, NIST Statistical Engineering Division

Register for this Short Course

Purpose The NIST Fundamentals of Uncertainty Analysis Short Course covers the propagation of measurement 

uncertainty using the methods outlined in the JCGM Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement

from a statistical perspective. The short course will provide participants with a working knowledge of the 

methods needed to compute measurement uncertainties, hands-on experience in the application of these 

methods, and scientific and statistical insight into the interpretation of the results.

Agenda The NIST Fundamentals of Uncertainty Analysis Short Course is a 3-day course held on the NIST 

campus in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The course consists of lectures, demos, short exercises, and hands-on 

applications covering many aspects of the propagation of uncertainty using the methods outlined in the JCGM 

Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement.

The hands-on applications will use functions for uncertainty analysis from the free software package, 

metRology, written for the open-source R statistical computing environment. The functions can be accessed 

directly in R (Windows/Mac/Linux), or via an Excel graphical user interface that is available as a free Excel 

add-in called metRology for Microsoft Excel (Windows only). Participants may bring their own laptops (NIST 

or personal), or laptops for use during the short course will be provided. If you would like to borrow a laptop,

please let one of the instructors know as soon as possible.

Attendance is limited to 28 participants. Pre-registration through the NIST Commerce Learning Center is 

required and acceptance is determined on a first-come, first-served basis.

Topics Covered

• Importance of uncertainty analysis

• Different statistical approaches for uncertainty analysis

• Essentials of the GUM approach

o Measurement functions

o Type A and Type B methods for evaluating standard uncertainties

o Degrees of freedom

o Sensitivity coefficients

o Propagation of standard uncertainties

o Effective degrees of freedom

o Expanded uncertainties

• Software for propagation of uncertainty

• Interpretation of results

Register for this Short Course
10519.

#### Smith *v.*Fisher.

Jenkins, P. J.

To an action upon an ordinary promissory note which recited that it was “for purchase-money of one mule, name Tobe and more fully described in a mortgage this day executed to secure the payment of this note,” the defendant interposed a plea setting up a *730partial failure of consideration *by*reason of the breach of a contemporaneous parol warranty of the plaintiff as to the soundness of the mule. The defendant moved to strike the plea, upon the grounds, (1) that it set forth no defense, and .(2) that it affirmatively appeared that the suit was upon a contract in writing, and the defense set up was an alleged parol agreement made contemporaneously therewith; that, the contract being in writing and appearing to be complete and certain, it will be presumed that it contains the whole agreement of the parties, and no facts are set forth in the defense to take the same out of the presumption above set forth. The court sustained this motion, dismissed the defendant’s plea, and entered up judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount sued for, and to these rulings the defendant excepted. *Held:*

Decided February 7, 1920.

Complaint; from city court of Floyd county—Judge Nunnally. March 6, 1919.

*M. B. Bubanlcs,*for plaintiff in error. *Maddox & Boyal,*contra.

Since the decision of the Supreme Court in *Pryor*v. *Ludden & Bates,*134 *Ga.*288 (67 S. E. 654, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 267), it has become settled that the maker of a promissory note which recites that its consideration is the purchase-price of described personal property, but does not purport to integrate the sale contract, may, in defense to a suit on the note by the seller, plead as failure of consideration a breach of a contemporaneous oral warranty. See also *Anthony*v. *Cody,*135 *Ga.*329 (69 S. E. 491); *International Harvester Co.*v. *Morgan,*19 *Ga. App.*716; *Rheney*v. *Anderson,*22 *Ga. App.*417, 418 (96 S. E. 217). It is only where such a written contract appears to be complete within itself that it will, in the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake, be conclusively presumed that the writing contains the whole of the agreement between the parties, and parol evidence of prior or contemporaneous conversations, representations, or statements will not be received for the purpose of adding to or varying the written instrument. Thus, if such writing contains a warranty of some kind or to some extent, parol evidence will not ordinarily be admitted to extend, enlarge, or modify that which the writing specifies. *Case Threshing Machine Co.*v. *Broach,*137 *Ga.*602 (73 S. E. 1063). While the note sued on in the instant case recites that its consideration is the purchase-price of described personal property, it does not purport to integrate the sale contract, nor does it purport to contain or exclude a warranty of any kind. The court therefore erred in striking the plea, on motion, and in thereafter entering up judgment for the plaintiff.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*