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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1569 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from issuing leases to certain 

entities affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2023 

Mr. WALTZ (for himself, Mr. GOTTHEIMER, and Mr. GAETZ) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, 

and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from issuing leases 

to certain entities affiliated with the Chinese Communist 

Party, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘CCP Lease Abolish5 ment for Minerals and Petroleum Act of 2023’’ or the 

6 ‘‘CLAMP Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1569 IH

1 SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON LEASES TO CERTAIN ENTITIES 

2 AFFILIATED WITH THE CHINESE COMMUNIST 

3 PARTY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior and 

5 the Secretary of Agriculture may not issue or renew a 

6 lease, issue a permit, or record a claim for any Federal 

7 lands (including submerged lands) under the general min8 ing laws, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 

9 U.S.C. 1301 note et seq.), or any other provision of law 

10 relating to the production, refining, harvesting, or extrac11 tion of minerals, timber, oil or natural gas, or any other 

12 natural resource or the production of energy, to any per13 son described in subsection (c). 

14 (b) PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER.—No person may 

15 transfer a title, lease, permit, recorded claim, or other in16 terest described in subsection (a) to any person described 

17 in subsection (c). 

18 (c) PERSONS SUBJECT TO RESTRICTION.—A person 

19 is described by this subsection if such person— 

20 (1) is the People’s Republic of China; 

21 (2) is a member of the Chinese Communist 

22 Party; 

23 (3) is a member of the People’s Liberation 

24 Army; 

25 (4) is identified by the Secretary of Defense 

26 under section 1260H(a) of the William M. (Mac) 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1569 IH

1 Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for 

2 Fiscal Year 2021 (10 U.S.C. 113 note) as a Chinese 

3 military company; 

4 (5) is included in the Non-SDN Chinese Mili5 tary-Industrial Complex Companies List published 

6 by the Department of the Treasury; or 

7 (6) is owned by or controlled by or is an agency 

8 or instrumentality of any person described in para9 graphs (1) through (5). 

10 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section applies to 

11 leases, permits, and claims issued after the date of the 

12 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
N1-Network Protection - Application Firewall

USGv6_NPD_APFW.html[3/30/18, 11:10:05 AM]

USGv6 Test Selection Tables*

NPD

November 30, 2009. 

N2-NPD: NPD_v1.0 

Applicable Profile: NIST SP 500-267 A profile for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0, July 2008.

Configuration Option: NPD APFW 

Test Specification Id:

[Network Protection Devices] Network Protection Devices Test Specification version 1.0, [editor: ICSA Labs ].

Reference:

NIST SP 500-267 A profile for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0, July 2008.

NPD Test Specification Section 3 Application Firewalls, all tests.

* The objective of this test selection sheet is to provide a reference for available test specifications that identifies tests

applicable to the USGv6 IPv6 Profile.
#### Lewis Robertson *v.*A. A. Brightman.

Sales — Ascertaining and Setting Apart.

Where an owner of land sold one hundred trees thereon of two feet and more in diameter at the stump, the contract is not complete and enforeible until the trees have been measured, their dimensions ascertained, and the trees set apart.

APPEAL FROM UNION CIRCUIT COURT.

February 27, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The distinction attempted to be made by counsel for appellee in illustrating his views of the legal • question presented, is not well taken. If A buys all of B’s hogs weighing over 200 pounds in a lot of 250, there is as much necessity for making the reduction as if he had agreed to take 100 of the hogs, exceeding 200 pounds out *540of the whofe number. How many of the hogs will A take out of the lot if the weight is not ascertained? No response can be made until the hogs are weighed, so that it may be known how many A is entitled to have under his contract, and if the hogs should all die before they are thus identified, the loss is with the one agreeing to sell, and not with |he one agreeing to purchase.

*James, for appellant.*

*D. H. Hughes, for appellee.*

In this case Woodson sold to the appellee 100 white oak trees standing on a tract of 115 acres of land, the trees to measure not less than two feet and upwards in diameter across the stump. No particular tree or trees are sold, but only 100 of such trees on the land as would measure two feet and upwards. It is conceded by counsel that if there were miore white oak trees on the land of the dimensions of those mentioned in the contract, that the trees must first be identified. How! are you to ascertain whether the number is less or exceeds 100? Only by measurement, and when this is done the title vests in the purchaser. Suppose there is less than 100 such trees, no, action could ever be maintained by the vendor for the reason that he is not in á condition to comply with his contract. The agreement to sell is binding, and an action may be maintained upon it by the vendor upon his averring a readiness and an ability to perform the contract, and a refusal by the ven-dee. If the title passed by this sale, the vendee could maintain an action against the vendor for the recovery of the trees under this contract. Before any measurement, what particular trees would he recover? Would not the officer in making the delivery have to measure the size of the timber, or could he exercise his judgment only, and deliver such trees as in his opinion would fulfill the terms of the agreement? This identical question has been heretofore settled. See Benjamin on Sales, 224; Hillardson on Sales, 43.

There can be no question but that if these trees had been destroyed before delivery the loss would have been Woodson’s, and not the appellee’s. The court should have instructed the jury to find for the defendant. Neither the allegation of the petition or proof makes out a cause of action. Judgment reversed and cause-remanded with directions to award a new trial and for further proceedings consistent herewith. •
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

D ecember 17, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00454

- CV

Charlene MENDEZ

, Appellant

v.

Jeremy DELGADO

, Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017

- CI

- 10408 Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellee has filed a motion for extension of time to file his brief, requesting an extension of sixty days. Appellee’s motion is GRANTED, and appellee’s brief is due March 4, 2019. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 17th day of December, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARIUS CHAMBERS, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 04-0761-BH-C

JERRY L. FERRELL, :

Defendant. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the

issue raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of

the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of

this Court. It is ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed without prepayment of fees

(Doc. 2) be and is hereby DENIED. It is further ORDERED that this action be and is

hereby DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DONE this 5th day of May, 2005.

 s/ W. B. Hand 

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00761-BH-C Document 7 Filed 05/05/05 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated condensed financial statements for the six-months ended November
30, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-2000
<CASH>                                       3,801,963
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,729,330
<ALLOWANCES>                                   502,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,812,101
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,671,317
<PP&E>                                       2,530,048
<DEPRECIATION>                               (707,527)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,786,263
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,447,008
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        56,407
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,936,334
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,786,263
<SALES>                                     11,698,621
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,698,621
<CGS>                                        2,960,496
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,960,496
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,424,504
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,546
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,309,075
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (786,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,095,075
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,095,075
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0298 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SARAH MARIE GRADY AKA SARAH MARIE STRONG -MITCHELL,

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 November 29 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

October 21 2021

10/21/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0298
M CORP

                               EXHIBIT #22

                              SUBSIDIARIES


                                                                   Percentage
                                                                     Voting
                                                                   Securities
                                       State of                     Owned By
Name Of Company                      Organization                  Registrant

Century Title Insurance Company
  (Inactive)                           Montana                          100

Diversified Realty, Inc.               Montana                           94

TSI, Inc.                              Montana                           92

UAC, Inc.                              Delaware                          (1)

TSI Business Systems, Inc.             Montana                           (2)

TSI Leasing, Inc.                      Montana                           (2)

First Mortgage Investors, Inc.
  (Inactive)                           North Dakota                      (3)

First Montana Title Company of
  Great Falls                          Montana                           (4)

First Montana Title Insurance
  Company                              Montana                           (2)

First Montana Title Company of
  Billings                             Montana                           (5)

First Montana Title Company of
  Forsyth                              Montana                           (5)

Merritt Properties, Inc.               Montana                           (5)

Miramar, Inc.                          Montana                           (2)

Consulting Associates, Inc.            Montana                           (4)

Lake Place, Inc.                       Montana                           (6)


     (1) Owned 87.2% by TSI, Inc.
     (2) Owned  100% by TSI, Inc.
     (3) Owned   70% by UAC, Inc.
     (4) Owned  100% by UAC, Inc.
     (5) Owned  100% by First Montana Title Insurance Company
     (6) Owned  100% by Miramar, Inc.


TSI, Inc. and Diversified Realty, Inc., are each registered under the
Exchange Act and each files its own Form 10-KSB pursuant to that act.


<PAGE>
affw_ex108.htm


Exhibit 10.8


 


AMENDED RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS







Pursuant to Section II of the Bylaws (the “Bylaws”) of American Housing Income Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Corporation”) and pursuant to the directives set forth in the Written Consent of Shareholders dated May 8, 2015, the Board of Directors of the Corporation unanimously adopt the following resolutions pursuant to Section III of the Bylaws.  These resolutions are intended to amend and supplement the resolutions dated May 8, 2015 (the “Original Resolutions”). To the extent these amended resolutions do not amend or supplement a provision of the Original Resolutions, the Original Resolutions shall not be modified.  The underlined portions of these amended resolutions set forth the amendments or supplements to the Original Resolutions.







RESOLVED, that for the consideration stated therein, the Board of Director Agreement between the Corporation and Kenneth Hedrick (“Hedrick Agreement”) is ratified and approved as being in the best interests of the Corporation.







RESOLVED, the Board of Directors accepts, ratifies and approves ARP’s conversion of its Series A Preferred Stock to 2,000 shares of common stock in the Corporation (post-split).







RESOLVED, that Eric Stoffers shall prepare a transfer instruction letter to Issuer Direct, upon notification of the approval of the reverse stock split by FINRA approving the issuance of (a) 1,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock to Sean Zarinegar, or his designee, under the Zarinegar Agreement, (b) 1,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock to PRM, or its designee, under the Operations Agreement, (c) 25,000 shares of the Company’s common stock to Kenneth Hedrick, or his designee, under the Hedrick Agreement, (d) 2,000 shares of the Company’s common stock to ARP in consideration of the conversion, and (e) the pro rata shares to the “ARP Members,” as defined under the Stock Exchange and Restructuring Agreement.







RESOLVED, that these resolutions may be executed in counterpart with facsimile or electronic signatures constituting originals for all intents and purposes.







These resolutions are executed as of May 14, 2015.








	
APPROVED:


	
 


/s/ Eric Stoffers


By: Eric Stoffers


Its: Chairman of the Board


 


/s/ Kenneth Hedrick


By: Kenneth Hedrick


Its: Director


 


/s/ Sean Zarinegar


By: Sean Zarinegar


Its: Director
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2014

h0421 

# Order

Clerk April 28, 2014

148379

BUREAU OF HEALTH PROFESSIONS,

Petitioner

- Appellee,

v SC: 148379

COA: 304710

Dept. of Community Health:

CLAUDE C. RODGERS, III, LMSW, 2006

- 001206

Respondent

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 14, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is co nsidered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Consulting Agreement



 Exhibit 10.34 
  
 CONSULTING AGREEMENT 
  
 The parties to this Consulting Agreement (Agreement) are Planar Systems, Inc. (“Planar”) and Balaji Krishnamurthy (“Consultant”).
Effective date is September 26, 2005. 
  
 1. Duties.
Planar engages Consultant to be available for and to provide consulting services and advice on an as needed basis (“Services”). 
  
 2. Term. The term of this Consulting Agreement shall be from the effective date until September 26, 2006. 
  
 3. Payment. Consultant agrees to be available for up to two days a
month during the Term to perform Services requested. Planar shall pay Consultant a consulting fee of $4,000.00 per day for each day of Services performed by Consultant at the request of Planar, payable within 10 days of the completion of performance
of the Services. In addition, Consultant will be reimbursed for reasonable travel and incidental expenses incurred in execution of requested Services. Consultant agrees that such compensation will constitute full and complete compensation for
Consultant’s Services and for all obligations assumed by Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant will be responsible for payment of all income, social security and other taxes assessed against fees paid by Planar to Consultant under the
terms of this Agreement. 
  
 4. Reporting to Planar’s
Facilities. Consultant is not required to report to work at Planar’s offices during any particular work hours, except for such meetings as may be necessary to deliver Services and/or report on Service delivery progress. 
  
 5. Ownership of Copyrights. Any original works of authorship,
including any written, pictorial, graphic or audiovisual work, conceived or created by Consultant under this Agreement shall be the property of Planar, and Consultant hereby assigns and agrees to assign to Planar all of Consultant’s rights,
including the rights of copyright, in any such work. 
  
 6.
Status of Consultant. Consultant agrees that Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of Planar, nor subject to the direct supervision or control by Planar, and that Consultant shall not be eligible for Planar employee
benefits. 
  
 7. Term and Termination. This Agreement may
be terminated by either party by written notice to the other, with immediate effect, if the other party is in default in the performance of its obligations hereunder or under any outstanding Services or any requirements under the Separation
Agreement and Release dated September 26, 2005. 
  

							
	 	 	 	 	PLANAR SYSTEMS, INC.
				
	 /s/ Balaji Krishnamurthy

	 	 	 	By:	 	 /s/ Gregory H. Turnbull


	Balaji Krishnamurthy	 	 	 	 	 	Gregory H. Turnbull
	September 26, 2005	 	 	 	 	 	Chairman of the Board

  

 1 – CONSULTING AGREEMENT
Spinwave Calculations

Michael Yang1,2, William Ratcliff II2

1Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology

2National Institute of Standards and Technology Center for Neutron Research
Significance

• Underlying assumptions

• Colossal magneto-resistant materials

• Multiferroics
Crystal Lattice 

• Lattice structure

• Repeated unit cell 

• Space groups

• Symmetry
Electron Spin

• Pauli exclusion principle

• Coulomb repulsion

• Magnetic order 

• Spin angular momentum

• Operators: {Sx, Sy, Sz}
Spinwaves

• Magnetic moments

• Ferromagnet

• Paramagnet

• Small deviation along moments

• Causes
Spinwave Energy Hamiltonian

• 1st Term:

• Exchange spin interactions

• 2nd Term:

• Anisotropic interactions

• 3rd Term:

• Applied magnetic field
SpinW (Paul Scherrer Institute)

- Invariance 

under rotations

- Common 

coordinate 

system

- Linear spin 

wave theory 

- HolsteinPrimakoff

- Fourier 

transform

- Crystal lattice

- Space groups

- Symmetry

- New spin 

operators

- Substitutions

- New 

Hamiltonian 

expression

- More 

substitutions

- Diagonalization

- Eigenvalues = 

spin wave 

energies
Progress
Future Actions

• ZeroMQ and Mathlab Engine API

• Future goals

ZeroMQ

Matlab Python

Mathlab Engine API

Matlab Python
Acknowledgements

• William Ratcliff II, Sándor Tóth, Yang Zhao, Zhijun Xu

• NIST Center for Neutron Research

• National Science Foundation Center for High Resolution Neutron 

Scattering (NSF CHRNS)

• National Institute of Standards and Technology Summer High 

School Internship Program (NIST SHIP)
#### Jeholada J. Eagleston, president, &c. *vs.*Nathan A. Son.

At special term, August, 1866.

Before Robertson, Ch. J.

Where a defendant is known as well by one name as another, he may be sued and arrested by either, and it is' immaterial by what name he was known to ■the plaintiffs in the action.

*W. C. Traphagen,*for the defendant.

*Chu/roUU*§■ *Wooclbury,*for the plaintiff. _