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.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### U.S. Customs and Border Protection

# AGENCY:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice of approval of Saybolt LP, as a commercial gauger.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, Saybolt LP, 905C Eastern Blvd., Clarksville, IN 47129, has been approved to gauge petroleum, petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov.*                         Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.                    

*http://cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​commercial_​gaugers/​*

# DATES:

The approval of Saybolt LP, as commercial gauger became effective on September 10, 2008. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for September 2011.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Anthony Malana, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania                               ( print page 30106)                            Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.                    

Dated: June 18, 2009.

Ira S. Reese,

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.

[FR Doc. E9-14912 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 9, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00281-CV

MOHAMAD G. ALATKI, Appellant

V.

TIDEWATER FINANCE COMPANY D/B/A TIDEWATER MOTOR 

CREDIT AND D/B/A TIDEWATER CREDIT SERVICES, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1055857

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed February 19, 2015. Appellant 

filed a timely motion for new trial. The notice of appeal was due March 23, 2015.

See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Appellant, however, filed his notice of appeal on March 

26, 2015, a date within 15 days of the due date for the notice of appeal. See 

Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appellant did not file a 

motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal. On June 23, 2015, we ordered 
2

appellant to file a proper motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal on or 

before July 3, 2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3, 10.5(b). Appellant did not file a 

motion. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Brown, and Wise.
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00863-CV

WEATHERFORD ARTIFICAL LIFT SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant

V.

A& E SYSTEMS SDN BHD, Appellee

Appeal from the 295th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2012-62091).

This case is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the trial court on 

October 3, 2014. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments 

properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s order contains no 

reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s order.

The Court further orders that the appellant, Weatherford Artificial Lift Systems, 

Inc., pay all costs incurred by reason of this appeal.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered July 14, 2015.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Massengale. Opinion 

delivered by Chief Justice Radack.
Couict OF C2e—IM LNA. AYPeALS
PusStru, TEXAS 051 W194 a3

\be\ Acosy¥a -
Lech )- Clerk, Suly BAIS

RE: EX PARTE PRTHUR DAVID WWE, Cause n0.6 SUNSE-L,
and Coca)~ W@-2 8679-23.

im under the un Jevstanding- shad the Court ~ your

vocords, (Alecks. the above Capture: Wert number.
fied by you, your allice

Howevey, 2 have not been notin
regacding the recipict fhe Application fov jovit of Rabeas

COrpUs .
TL Wve not rece\vied anything {von you, youv office .

Please infurh Ne, whelhey your aClice receive the
\ia beds Cov pu hyppli cat i0n ?

I.aruly apere Ciake youv Cons oeration .. TRAIIC

“gu smay GOD bless you. youv Family and Friends
Sincerely
ceiveD iN dtthun Got
Ve FHU LOWE *6 67450
ote Se erminic teens HUCHES WET.
JUL 13 208 (C7. 2, BOX 4460

~ pipet Acosta. Clerk Cote Sik. TEXAS
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 LILM, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, George I. Norman,
III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 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.


/s/   GEORGE I. NORMAN, III
------------------------------
George I. Norman, III
Chief Executive Officer
June 25, 2007



     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-QSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
#### Viola Carol, Appellant, v Madison Plaza Associates, LLC, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Submitted December 24, 2012;

decided February 7, 2013

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from so much of the Appellate Division order as denied the motion for leave to amend the complaint, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the Appellate Division order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 573 

Recognizing the celebration of the Hmong New Year in 2019. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2019 

Mr. GROTHMAN (for himself, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. LOWENTHAL, Mr. GALLAGHER, Mr. POCAN, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. TAKANO, Ms. MOORE, Ms. 

LOFGREN, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. COSTA, Ms. JUDY CHU of California, Mr. 

KIND, and Mr. CORREA) submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the celebration of the Hmong New Year in 2019. 

Whereas the Hmong New Year is traditionally celebrated at 

the end of the rice harvest season in Laos and Southeast 

Asia in late November or early December; 

Whereas the Hmong New Year traditionally spans multiple 

days, with each village starting and ending the New Year 

on a different date to allow other villages to come, support, and visit each other; 

Whereas the Hmong New Year is traditionally a time to give 

thanks to ancestral spirits and visit other villages; 

Whereas Hmong New Year celebrations traditionally include 

song, dance, food, and courtship games for youth, including pov pob, a ball-throwing game; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 573 IH 

Whereas Hmong Americans across the United States celebrate the New Year on weekends from October to December; and 

Whereas Hmong New Year celebrations are a significant cultural tradition in many communities across the United 

States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the cultural and historical signifi3 cance of the Hmong New Year; 

4 (2) expresses the deepest respect for Hmong 

5 Americans celebrating this occasion; and 

6 (3) wishes Hmong Americans and all individ7 uals who observe this holiday a happy New Year. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
CHECKLIST FOR ANDERS BRIEF

DOCKET NO.: 06-15-00086-CR-06-15-00089-CR REVIEW DATE: 7/14/2015

STYLE: Samuel Moses Williams v. The State of Texas

YES NO Reject

1. Did counsel file brief and motion to withdraw as counsel? ☒ ☐ ☐

2. Did counsel provide assurances that Anders duties were performed by either

a. attaching correspondence from counsel to client, or ☒ ☐ ☐

b. filing certification of performance of duties to client? ☐ ☒ ☐

3. As part of 2 above, did counsel

a. provide copies of Anders brief and motion to withdraw, ☒ ☐ ☐

b. advise client of rights to review record and file pro se response, and ☒ ☐ ☐

c. either

i. forward copies of CR and RR to client, or ☒ ☐ ☐

ii. forward appropriately formatted form motion for access to record? ☐ ☒ ☐

YES NO Warn

Rule 38.1(a) Identity of Parties and Counsel

List of all parties ☒ ☐ ☐

Names and address of all TRIAL counsel ☒ ☐ ☐

Names and address of all APPELLATE counsel ☒ ☐ ☐

Rule 38.1(b) Table of Contents References the page number in the brief ☒ ☐ ☐

Indicates the subject matter of each issue/point ☐ ☒ ☐

Rule 38.1(c) Index of Authorities Lists citations alphabetically ☒ ☐ ☐

Gives the page numbers where cases are cited ☒ ☐ ☐

Rule 38.1(d) Statement of the Case States concisely the nature of the case ☒ ☐ ☐

States the course of the proceedings ☒ ☐ ☐

Gives the disposition of the case ☒ ☐ ☐

Rule 38.1(f) Issues Presented (States concisely all issues or points) ☐ ☒ ☐

Rule 38.1(g) Statement of Facts

States the facts concisely and without argument ☒ ☐ ☐

Gives RR references (CL if not here but in Argument; Rebrief if in neither) ☒ ☐ ☐

Rule 38.1(h) Summary of the Argument

Contains a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments ☐ ☒ ☐

Does not merely repeat issues/points ☐ ☒ ☐

Rule 38.1(i) Argument Contains a clear, concise argument ☒ ☒ ☐

Must contain appropriate citations to authorities and/or the record ☒ ☐ ☐

Rule 38.1(j) Prayer/Short Conclusion (States clearly the nature of the relief sought) ☒ ☐ ☐

Rule 9.1 Signing State Bar of Texas identification number ☒ ☐ ☐

Correct signature for e-filed documents - /s/xxnamexx ☒ ☐ ☐

Rule 9.5(d) Certificate of Service ☒ ☐ ☐

Rule 9.4 Form 1” margins ☒ ☐ ☐

Double spaced ☒ ☐ ☐

10-point non-proportionally spaced; 13-point proportionally spaced ☒ ☐ ☐

Certificate of Compliance (word-count ≤ 15,000 words) ☒ ☐ ☐

E-FILED? ☒ YES ☐ NO BOOKMARKED? ☐ YES ☒ NO SEARCHABLE? ☒ YES ☐ NO

DISPOSITION: ☒ FILE ☐ FILE & CORRECTION LETTER ☐ RE-BRIEF O/A: ☐ REQUESTED ☒ WAIVED

DATE FILED: 7/14/2015 PRO SE RESPONSE DUE: 8/13/2015
#### KLEIN v. DEBWAY HATS, Inc.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Feb. 4, 1942.

Carlton Z. Solomon, and Riess, Applebaum & Kadin, all of New York City, for plaintiff.

Barron, Rice & Rockmore, of New York City (Samuel I. Rockmore, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

MANDELBAUM, District Judge.

The instant action is brought to recover the sum of $100 for each and every hat sold by the defendant, in violation of Section 50 of Title 35, U.S.C.A. That statute, in substance, provides for the imposition of certain penalties for falsely marking or labeling unpatented articles.

The defendant, who is charged with the violation of this statute, contends that it is unable to respond to the complaint in its present form and seeks alternative relief, namely, to direct plaintiff to separately state and number the causes of action sought to be asserted or to make the complaint more definite and certain, or for a bill of particulars of the allegations of the Fourth Paragraph of the complaint. The crux of the complaint (Paragraph Fourth) alleges that on or about February 24th, 1941 and on every day thereafter up to and including May 26th, 1941, the defendant marked upwards of 20,000 unpatented hats or similar articles.

This general allegation, together with the prayer that the defendant should be assessed $100 for each of the hats so mismarked might very well spell out 20,000 distinct and separate penalties under the statute.

The point involved has been directly passed upon in Hoyt v. Computing Scale Co., D.C., 96 F. 250. That was a case based upon an Ohio statute similar in substance to the statute in question. There a motion was made to require the plaintiff to separately state and number his causes of action. The court, in granting the motion, held that the defendant is entitled to know if the plaintiff treats each marking as a separate and distinct offense and claims a penalty therefor; and also has a right to know, before being called upon to answer, how many articles were marked each day or time of marking.

The court is mindful of the tendency, for brevity in pleadings. However, this being a quasi-criminal action, the pleading should be clear and the defendant should not be called upon to categorically deny the general allegations of the complaint in order to be in a position to invoke the provisions of Rule 26 et seq. of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. following section 723c.

The motion is granted to the following extent: Plaintiff is directed to serve a *357bill of particulars of the allegations of Paragraph Fourth, in which he shall set forth each date on which defendant is claimed to have marked or affixed the legend set forth in said paragraph to hats or articles manufactured by it, together with the number of hats, or articles so marked on each date. This bill is to be served within twenty (20) days after service of a copy of this order, together with notice of entry thereon, upon plaintiff’s attorney.

Settle order on notice.
CourL/ 0 F -out1LI'-J AL ~YTB\L~ 

lfuLY 1 LJ J lO J-5" 

AUSili\J I IEXAS 1S,(J~,2L/ 

12E: .lN tel:: d\iZ1 Hurc /)f\V_Lb LOwE: J lJ/l ~lr/ G 7 ?l-ZLf 

b-tdv- ~bt\ ~coJtc\, 

C CCA), 

_r 'n \.D r ·, i 1 hej +h ~ s M ·, ss ; ve.. , fe4ut:.S+ ; fYj k.\ WheY 

)"oLJ 1 your oUi cc nee ;vc~ MJ 'rlOIIDN roR L€1\VG 

-ro r-:r.Lt IJ ra::--r hi\ i'Jt 1\N MLlS ~ {;\e_~ I h the dbD\J-c:.- o pill~~ 

l;J ( j• + hl LA 1"'\ b e_ v : . . . . ' . 

An y i ()fo fLV'I~f i D n yMJ , y6u 'Y o ~-\; u:. eel h pro v ;\:. ne._ 

l~ .It h i hf(}y'll~ ~ rO (I C6 h L.tJrn; Vl--G ·--(tCc ~\ltd t\,e. W ltrT. 

I +v,_U 1 y1 

'/ ~ (J. . . h d \j 

I 

J 

d \J p fli i d fe.. Y 0 l1l '( C0\1 S ; cl_t:X2\~; 0 'iJ , .. -nfl\~ k. 

.C!.lD k\t.s:.__c yw .ytJuv fdnr\; ~~~) fv·,m).c 

REClE~-VED ~N tCOORT OF CRIMINM. 1!\P~IEALS 

JUL 16 2015 

A~@~~®®~i~, c~~vk 

S~h ~r~_j\J 

fltthU/} du 

1\Ul-\U VL UJ \v~ M--6 b 11 Sb 

1-\.U C \{2S t1 IJ£C I ll!. 2. Gt>~ L[LfO\) 

. C t\-"1 es \J 1 L L £ . -r2X A._s 

16S11
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7065

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY D. HARRELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR94-201-PJM, CA-95-3799-PJM)

Submitted: October 7, 1997 Decided: October 23, 1997

Before HALL, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony D. Harrell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony D. Harrell appeals the district court's order denying

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West 1994 & Supp. 1997)) motion. We affirm.

Harrell pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the interference

with commerce by robbery. We note that Harrell does not ask that

his guilty plea be set aside. To the extent that he does attack the

validity of his guilty plea, our review of the record reveals that

Harrell cannot show that, but for counsel's alleged errors, he

would have pleaded not guilty and gone to trial. See Hill v.

Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). Harrell's main complaint is that

there are inaccuracies in his presentence report. However, he never

specifically identifies the alleged inaccuracies. His conclusory

claim cannot serve as the basis for relief under § 2255.

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are fully presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
TDC3J Offender Details : . Page 1 of 2
Hl 48S -O79F:
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE Kg Sar

Offender Information Details

Return to Search list

SID Number: 04082697
TDCJ Number: . 01464905
Name: ALBERT,VERLEE JR
Race: B

Gender: M

DOB: 1967-02-20
Maximum Sentence Date: 2030-02-11
Current Facility: PACK I
Projected Release Date: 2030-02-11
Parole Eligibility Date: 2018-08-13
Offender Visitation Eligible: YES

Information provided is updated once daily during weekdays and multiple times per day
on visitation days. Because this information is subject to change, family members and
friends are encouraged to call the unit prior to traveling for a visit.

SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULED RELEASE:

Scheduled Release Date: Offender is not scheduled for release at this time.
Scheduled Release Type: Will be determined when release date is scheduled.
Scheduled Release Location: Will be determined when release date is scheduled.

Parole Review Information

Offense History:
Offense Sentence Sentence (YY-MM-
Date Offense Date County Case No. DD)

http://offender.tdcj.texas.gov/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=04082697 7/5/2015
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00458-CV

Frederick Stanton DUNCAN,

Appellant

v.

Shanna Nicole DUNCAN,

Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-CI-18794

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

WANT OF PROSECUTION. Costs of court for this appeal are taxed against Frederick Stanton 

Duncan. 

SIGNED September 4, 2019.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
---



UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

---



FORM 10-QSB/A



xQUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



For the Quarterly Period Ended May 31, 2006



 ̈TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



For the Transition Period From  to



---



Commission File Number



SUMMIT EXPLORATION INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



|Nevada                                                           |  | 20-4475552                          
|---------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------
|(State or other jurisdiction of
		incorporation or organization) |  | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)



Suite 700, One Executive Place 1816 Crowchild Trail N.W. Calgary, AB       T2M 3Y7

(Address of principal executive offices)                                            (Zip Code)



Registrants telephone number, including area code:    (403) 313 8995



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes x     No ̈





Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

Yes x     No ̈



APPLICABLE ONLY TO ISSUERS INVOLVED IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PRECEDING FIVE YEARS

Check whether the registrant filed all documents and reports required to be filed by Section 12, 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act after the distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by court.

Yes  ̈     No ̈



APPLICABLE ONLY TO CORPORATE ISSUERS



State the number of shares outstanding of each of the Issuer's classes of common equity, as of the latest practicable date: Common, $0.0001 par value per share: 8,162,800 outstanding as of February 20, 2007.

Transitional Small Business Disclosure Format (check one):

Yes  ̈     Nox



---





In accordance with the requirements of the Exchange Act, the registrant caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

|                         | SUMMIT EXPLORATION INC.(Registrant)
|------------------------ | -----------------------------------
|                         |                                    
|Dated: February 20, 2007 | BY:                                
|                         |                                    

---