alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Motors, Displays, and Fibers

Jonathan Gelmann, Walt Whitman High School

Mentor: Nick Maliszewskyj
Stepper Motor Control System

• Test/Manual Override

• Current System Old

• Components

• Motor

• Encoder

• Limits

• HMI

• Encoder/Motor Position, Limit Status

• Power Supply

• Motor Driver
Stepper Motor Control System

• Production Process

• Jogging

• Serial Command Language and Q Programming

• Limits

• Wiring Limits through I/O DB-25 Connector and 24V Power Supply

• HMI

• RS-485 Interface

• Modbus Protocol

• Accessing Registers

• Ladder Programming

• Chassis

• Bottom, Back, and Front Plate

• Connectors
Display Boards

• Programmable Shutter Display

• Production

• Solder Paste + Flux

• Hot Plate

• Bridge Repair/Touch-ups
Display Boards

• Why do we need new ones?

• Old ones fading

• Programmable

• Sun Filter

• More efficient

• More Inputs
Scintillation Detector

• CANDOR Neutron Detector

• Detection Process

• Lithium – 6

• Zinc Sulfide

• Wave Shifting Fibers

• SiPM

• PreAmp

• Discriminator

• Current Detector

• Helium-3
My Contribution

• Frames

• Fibers

• Polishing

• 540 Triple Frames
Acknowledgements

• Julie Borchers

• Nick Maliszewskyj

• Yamali Hernandez

• SHIP Director and SHIP Program

• NCNR

• CHRNS

• NSF
#### BROWN *v.*HUTCHESON, Judge.

No. 6779.

December 11, 1928.

*Aldme & Hewitt W. Chambers,*for plaintiff in error.

Gilbert, J.

1. The act of the General Assembly creating the Supreme Court of Georgia expressly conferred upon said court the power to establish rules of practice. Ga. L. 1845, p. 18, § 14. “The rules of the court are the law of the court, until repealed, unless they are repugnant to the’constitution and statutes of the State.” *Chapman*v. *Gray,*8 *Ga.*337 (3). The power to establish rules of practice “is inherent in all courts.” Id. 339. “The rules of the respective courts, legally adopted and not in conflict with the constitution of the United States, of this State, or the laws thereof, are binding and must be observed.” Civil Code (1910), § 4641.

*4522. The rules of the Supreme Court and of the Court of Appeals provide that where any judge of the superior or city courts of this State “shall neglect or refuse to certify any bill of exceptions as required by law, or shall fail or refuse to specify in his certificate the cause of delay (in case he has withheld his signature till after the expiration of the time within which he is required to sign the same, for any of the causes justifying such delay), the party tendering the bill of exceptions, if he desires a mandamus nisi to be directed to such judge, must file his application by petition to this court, as prescribed by section 6159 of the Civil Code, within twenty days after the refusal of said judge to certify said bill of exceptions or cause of delay, or he will not be heard,” etc. Civil Code (1910), §§ 6252, 6348.

3. The Civil Code (1910), § 6159, provides: “If from any cause the bill of exceptions is not certified by the judge, without fault of the party tendering, such party or his attorney shall apply at the next term of the Supreme Court, and, on petition, obtain from said court a mandamus nisi, directed to such judge. . . The mandamus nisi shall be served by some sheriff of this State, and his return made to the clerk of the Supreme Court. It shall be returnable at the same term of the Supreme Court, at which term the court shall consider and determine the validity of the reasons given by the judge for his failure or refusal; but in no case shall a traverse as to the truth of such return of the judge be allowed.”

4. The rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, above indicated, are in conflict with the Civil Code, § 6159. In such case the statute must prevail, because, under the rule-making authority granted under § 4641, only those rules are valid which are not in conflict with the constitution of the United States or of this State or the laws thereof.

5. It follows that the judgment of the Court of "Appeals must be set aside; but no ruling is made upon the merits, other than whether the 20-day limit is a valid and binding rule.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 19, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-0474 Lower Tribunal No. F05-5281A

________________ 

### Raudel Robinson, Appellant, vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas J. Rebull, Judge. Raudel Robinson, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCALES, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
512.371.1006 512.476.6685 (fax)

Via Electronic Filing Third Court ofAppeals 209 W 14th St. Austin, TX 78701 

## Jon Michael Smith Attorney 3305 Northland Drive Suite 500 Austin, Texas 78731

November 9, 2015 www.jonmichaelsmith.com jon@jonmichaelsmith.com

RE: Cause No. 03-14-00643; Monte Montgomery v. Monty Hitchcock, in the Court ofAppeals for the Third District ofTexas, Austin, Texas.

Dear Clerk,
Please be advised that Mr. Jon Michael Smith will be on vacation beginning Thursday, December24,2015andreturningMonday,january4,2016.

He therefore requests that no settings, hearings, depositions, deadline matters, or matters requiring a response be delivered and/or scheduled during that time in the abovereferenced cause ofaction.
Please filemark this letter. Ifyouhave any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely,

Assistant to Jon Michael Smith CC: Steven R. Samples Via Fax 855-605-1505 Samples Law Group 2605 Airport Freeway Suite 100 Fort Worth, Texas 76111 ACCEPTED 03-14-00643-CV 7742754 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 11/9/2015 12:43:05 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-11281 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DARRELL L. MOREHOUSE, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:94-CR-424-G

- - - - - - - - - - September 21, 1998 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Darrell L. Morehouse, J r. appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release. Morehouse admitted that he refused to participate in mental health testing, but he argues that the portion of the testing that required him to view pornographic materials violates his First Amendment religious rights and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
We have reviewed the briefs, but we are constrained from reaching the merits of Morehouse's appeal by his failure to carryNo. 97-11281 -2- his burden of providing the court with a complete record. F E D . R.
A PP . P. 10(b).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
10741.

#### Williams *v.*The State.

Decided November 4, 1919.

Broyles, C. J.

1. A special ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete within itself, and will not be considered by the reviewing court when it is so incomplete as to require reference to the brief of the evidence, or to some other portion of the record, to make it understandable. In the instant ease the first special ground of the motion for a new trial complains that a certain named witness was not allowed to testify, in answer to questions by the defendant, to certain statements alleged to have been made to him (and which are set forth in the ground) by a codefendant, at the time of the arrest of the defendant and his codefendant. The ground does not show, however, whether the witness was upon direct or cross-examination, or that the court was ■ apprised of the expected answers of the witness, or that any part of this conversation had already gone to the jury. This ground of the motion is therefore too defective to be considered by this court.

2. Under all the facts of the ease, the court did not err in failing to instruct the jury that the case was based entirely upon circumstantial evidence.

3. The charge upon the subject of recent possession of stolen property was not erroneous.

4. The verdict was authorized by the evidence.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luhe and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*

*336Indictment for car breaking; from Fulton superior court—Judge Humphries. June 24, 1919.

*Tillou Von Nunes,*for plaintiff in error.

*John A. Boylcin, solicitor-general, E. A. Stephens,*contra.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4534 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4534

          To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Red 176.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 9, 2004

 Mr. Langevin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Red 176.

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

SECTION 1. PIGMENT RED 176.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.34.54      Pigment Red 176     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (CAS No. 12225-06-                                                 31/2006
                         8) (provided for
                         in subheading
                         3204.17.04)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 3, 2018

No. 04-18-00199-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.C.F., ET AL., CHILDREN

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-CI-11406

Honorable Richard E. Price, Judge Presiding

ORDER

This appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. The costs of this appeal 

are taxed against appellant.

It is so ORDERED on October 3, 2018.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 3rd day of October, 2018.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
140 Corporation                    EKM Corporation                 
147 Corporation                    Fern Corporation                
150 Corporation                    Franklin 850 Corporation        
1690 Lex. Corp.                    Greenvale Enterprises Corp.     
2911 Corporation                   Hadley Corporation              
47 Boundary Corp.                  HHKM Realty Corp.               
521 W. 146 Corp.                   HJA Realty Corporation          
627 Second Corp.                   HJB Corporation                 
629 Second Corp.                   HJM Corporation                 
747 Middleneck Corp.               HJSC Corporation                
860 Franklin Associates, Inc       HR-Twenty Corp.                 
9 Park Place Corp.                 Ives Corporation                
95 Perry Corp.                     JKM Corporation                 
AFP Financial Corp.                K-South Corp.                   
AFP Five Corp.                     Kentile Inc.                    
AFP Four Corp.                     Kings County Corp.              
AFP One Corp.                      L C Corporation                 
AFP Realty Corp.                   Land & Leases Corp.             
AFP Six Corp.                      Madison Corporation             
AFP Technologies, Inc.             Melancon Corporation            
AFP Three Corp.                    Metex Corporation               
AFP Transformers, Inc.             Metex Enviroco Corp.            
AFP Two Corp.                      Metex Export Corporation        
AKM Corp.                          Metex International Sales Corp. 
Alba Corporation                   Metex Liquidation Co., Inc.     
Ancom Electromagnetique, Ltd.      Nemo Acquisition Corp.          
Atwill Corporation                 Northbrook Entereprises Corp.   
Avalon Corp.                       Northwood Corporation           
Beekman Corp.                      PDK Corporation                 
Belmont Corporation                Pine Equities Corporation       
BKM Corp.                          Prospect Center Corp.           
BPI Corp.                          RBS Realty Corporation          
Busch Realty Corp.                 Schuller Corporation            
C.P. Manufacturing, Inc.           Second CEW Properties, Inc.     
Cambreleng Corp.                   Sunrise Equities Corp.          
Cedar Enterprises Corp.            Sutton Realty Corporation       
CEW Properties, Inc.               Third CEW Properties, Inc.      
Cleethorpes Properties, Inc.       Toledo Corporation              
Clinton-Bush Corp.                 Tri-Mart Corporation            
Cortland Enterprises Corp.         Twenty-M Corporation            
Culver Corporation                 Twin II  Realty Corporation     
D&M/Chu Technology, Inc.           Various Equities Corp.          
Dallas Enterprises Corp.           Waverly Corporation             
Del-Metex Corporation              Wellford Corporation            
Dorne & Margolin, Inc.             West 145 Corporation            
Eastside Corporation               
EBMO Corporation
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-3104

___________________________

In re: Chelsea Ann Conway

lllllllllllllllllllllDebtor

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

Chelsea Ann Conway

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

National Collegiate Trust

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

First Marblehead Corp., Inc.

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

____________

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy

 Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit

____________

 Submitted: June 4, 2014

 Filed: June 9, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________
Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

National Collegiate Trust (NCT) appeals from the judgment of the Bankruptcy

Appellate Panel (BAP) reversing the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that debtor

Chelsea Conway had reasonably reliable future financial resources with which to pay

her entire student loan debt to NTC. Reviewing the Bankruptcy Court’s finding of

facts for clear error and its conclusion of law de novo, the BAP determined that

excepting from discharge all of Conway’s obligations to NTC would impose an

“undue hardship” under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). But the BAP remanded for a separate

“undue hardship” discharge analysis of each of Conway’s fifteen individual debts to

NCT. We have independently reviewed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision, applying

the same standard of review as the BAP. See Walker v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp.

(In re Walker), 650 F.3d 1227, 1230 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review). We affirm

for the reasons stated by the BAP. See Conway v. Nat’l Collegiate Trust (In re

Conway), 495 B.R. 416 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2013). In addition, contrary to NCT’s

arguments on appeal, we find no abuse of discretion in the BAP’s decision to reach

the merits of the Bankruptcy Court’s decision despite immaterial deficiencies in the

record on appeal, see Wilson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Wilson), 402 B.R. 66,

69–70 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2009), no contravention of congressional intent with regard

to the discharge analysis, and no abuse of discretion in the decision to remand for

further proceedings. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

-2-
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of China Broadband, Inc. (f/k/a Alpha
Nutra, Inc.) (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Marc Urbach, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
China Broadband, Inc. (f/k/a Alpha Nutra, Inc.) and will be retained by China
Broadband, Inc. (f/k/a Alpha Nutra, Inc.) and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


May
      20, 2009
                
                /s/
      Marc UrbachMarc
      Urbach(Principal
      Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund V, Ltd. at September 30, 1997, and its statement of
income for the nine months then ended and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to the Form 10Q of CNL Income Fund V, Ltd. for the nine months ended
September 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,900,662<F2>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  180,204
<ALLOWANCES>                                   137,892
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      14,010,215
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,128,783
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,686,277
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,541,030
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,686,277
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,456,010
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  439,845
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 9,007
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,283,411
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,283,411
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,283,411
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F2>Cash balance includes $2,484,723 in restricted cash.
<F1>Due to the nature of its industry, CNL Income Fund V, Ltd. has an unclassified
balance sheet; therefore, no values are shown above for current assets and
current liabilities.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential.



# United States Court of Appeals

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

JOHNSON & JOHNSON SURGICAL VISION,

INC.,

Appellant

v.

ALCON INC.,

Appellee

______________________

2023

- 1477

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021

-

01053

.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App.

P. 42 (b)

.

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

February 22, 2023

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: February 22, 2023 Case: 23-1477 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 02/22/2023
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         111,245
<SECURITIES>                                11,942,805
<RECEIVABLES>                                  336,921
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,618,447
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,618,447
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          443,526
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,174,921
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,618,447
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               277,769
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  128,850
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                148,919
<INCOME-TAX>                                   148,919
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            148,919
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   148,919
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>