alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
@conference{10926,
  author = {Prem Rachakonda and Daniel Sawyer and Balasubramanian Muralikrishnan and Christopher Blackburn and Craig Shakarji and Gregory Strouse and Steven Phillips},
  title = {In-situ Temperature Calibration Capability for Dimensional Metrology},
  year = {2014},
  month = {2014-12-01},
  publisher = {In-situ Temperature Calibration Capability for Dimensional Metrology, Orlando, FL},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=915733},
  language = {en},
}
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, July 22, 2009, 8 a.m. to July 22, 2009, 5 p.m., Avenue Hotel Chicago, 160 E Huron,                           ( print page 30597)                        Chicago, IL 60611 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on June 15, 2009, 74 FR 28260-28262.                

The meeting will be two days July 22, 2009, 8 a.m. to July 23, 2009, 4 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: June 18, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-15120 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,878]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 4, 2009, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of BCF Industries, Altavista, Virginia.

The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of May 2009.

Elliott S. Kushner,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-15302 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned, David Gorodyansky, the Chief Financial Officer of INTELLIGENT
BUYING. INC.  (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.
The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010
(the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 13th day
of May 2010.




/s/ David GorodyanskyDavid
      GorodyanskyPrincipal
      Financial Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Intelligent Buying, Inc. and will be retained by Intelligent Buying, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### In the Matter of Gina Kussman, Respondent, v GiveAnything.com, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[822 NYS2d 733]

In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3102 (c) to obtain pre-action disclosure, GiveAnything.com, Inc., Universal Certificate Group, LLC, George Brookshire, also known as Edward Brookshire, and Steve Perry appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered January 9, 2006, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the petition because, inter alia, the discovery requested was not limited to obtaining the identities of prospective defendants and the petitioner had sufficient information to frame a complaint without the discovery requested (see CPLR 3102 [c]; *Matter of Rann v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.,*22 AD3d 586, 586-587 [2005]; *cf. Matter of Tool v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp.,*300 AD2d 592 [2002]; *Matter of Stewart v New York City Tr. Auth.,*112 AD2d 939, 940 [1985]; *Matter of Corigliano,*76 AD2d 886 [1980]; *Matter of Houlihan-Parnes, Realtors [Cantor, Fitzgerald & Co.],*58 AD2d 629, 630 [1977]; *Patterns Unlimited v Weiss,*36 AD2d 859 [1971]). Schmidt, J.P., Ritter, Mastro, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
@conference{108921,
  author = {John Messina and James St},
  title = {From Databooks to Online Dictionaries and Parts Catalogues},
  year = {2003},
  month = {2003-10-27},
  publisher = {4tha Annual ECCMA Membership Conference, Bethlehem, PA},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=901694},
  language = {en},
}
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 4

- 00 219

- C R



### ____________________

JAMES TAYLOR JR.

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 356th District Court

Hardin County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. 21666

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

James Taylor Jr. has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. See Tex. R. App.

P. 42.2. A request to dismiss the appeal is signed by appellant personally and by

counsel of record. No opinion has issued in this appeal. The motion is granted,

and the appeal is therefore dis missed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.2 ________________________________ HOLLIS HORTON

Justice

Submitted on January 27, 2015

Opinion Delivered January 28, 2015

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
Number of Gaming Number of Gaming Number of Gaming Revenue

Operations Revenues Operations Revenues Operations Revenues Percentage

Region I 47 1,829,195 45 1,601,710 2 227,485 14.2%

Region II 57 7,042,686 54 5,822,114 3 1,220,572 21.0%

Region III 48 2,529,128 45 2,159,872 3 369,256 17.1%

Region IV 118 3,984,449 117 3,815,857 1 168,592 4.4%

Region V 93 1,729,981 87 1,258,717 6 471,264 37.4%

Region VI 28 5,514,136 27 4,820,864 1 693,272 14.4%

Totals 391 22,629,575 375 19,479,134 16 3,150,441 16.2%

Region I

Region II

Region III

Region IV

Region V

Region VI

North Carolina, and New York.

Fiscal Year 2005 Fiscal Year 2004 Increase (decrease)

audited financial statements of those operations were not received.

Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, 

South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming

Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

through June 29, 2006; 12 operations' revenue figures compiled from fee worksheets, as

Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

California, and Northern Nevada

Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Southern Nevada.

National Indian Gaming Commission

Tribal Gaming Revenues (in thousands) by Region

Fiscal Year 2005 and 2004

Source: Compiled from gaming operation audited financial statements received by the NIGC
#### HOWARD v. UNITED STATES.

No. 52.

District Court, E. D. Tennessee.

July 13, 1940.

Adam B. Bowman, of Johnson City, Tenn., for plaintiff.

David A. Turner, Atty., Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., and W. E. Badgett, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Knoxville, Tenn., for defendant.

TAYLOR, District Judge.

At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence, the defendant moved for a directed verdict, and the motion was taken under advisement pending the introduction of defendant’s evidence. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the defendant renewed its original motion and again asked for peremptory instructions in its favor. The case was submitted to the jury with the right reserved to pass on the motions after opportunity to consider particularly the question of the effect of the absence of medical evidence as of the exact crucial date. The medical evidence related to examinations of a few weeks later than the date of administrative denial. I have had portions of the reporter’s notes read to refresh my recollection as to the facts, and have concluded that the case could not properly have been withdrawn from the jury because there is evidence of a substantial character, which if believed by the jury would require a verdict for the plaintiff. I think the court should permit a retrial of the case, the jury having disagreed at this hearing, and the motion under Rule 50(b), Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, will be denied. . .
#### Nineteen Eighty-Nine, LLC, Plaintiff, v Icahn Enterprises L.P. et al., Defendants. Carl C. Icahn et al., Appellants, v Geoffrey Raynor et al., Respondents.

Decided January 15, 2013

Appeal, insofar as taken from that portion of the Appellate Division order which affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of appellants’ motion to amend the complaint, dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; appeal otherwise dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
#### MATTHIES v. PETER F. CONNOLLY CO.

No. 2315.

District Court, E. D. New York.

Dec. 19, 1941.

Albert Martin Cohen, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for plaintiff.

John P. Smith, of New York City, for defendant.

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

This is a motion for an order pursuant to Rule 30 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, modifying the notice to take the deposition of the defendant by an officer, agent or employee having personal •knowledge of the facts out of which this accident arises.

The plaintiff, if it desires to examine any statements and photographs, must *277procure an order on notice under Rule 34, providing for discovery, and can not do indirectly under the taking of a deposition what it could not do directly.

Therefore, from the notice of taking deposition there should be deleted the following “any statement or statements obtained by the said person or persons in charge of said barge and gangplank, and any and all persons relating to the accident which is the subject matter of this action, and any and all photographs taken of the scene of said accident.”

The remainder of the notice seems not to be objectionable, but the names of the persons in charge of the barge and gangplank prior to the 9th of May 1941, may not be for an indefinite time, but only from the time plaintiff contends he was given permission to board the scow using such gangplank.
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 Cannabis Sativa, Inc. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2017, as filed with the Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, Mike Gravel, Principal Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 

Dated:  May 22, 2017
1

John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by

assignment. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2002). 

NO. 07-02-0043-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

NOVEMBER 7, 2002

______________________________

MICHAEL ANTHONY MARTINEZ, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 44,317-E; HONORABLE ABE LOPEZ, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ., and BOYD, SJ.1

This appeal was brought by appellant Michael Anthony Martinez after he entered

a plea of guilty to the offense of debit card abuse and was sentenced to serve 18 months

in a state jail facility. In pursuing his appeal, appellant gave a timely notice of his intent
2

to appeal.

Appellant, joined by his attorney, has now filed a motion in which he asks this court

to dismiss his appeal. The State has not contested the motion.

Accordingly, because appellant has complied with the requisites of Rule 42.2 of the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we grant his motion to dismiss and do hereby dismiss

his appeal. Furthermore, because this is a voluntary request for dismissal, no motions for

rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith. 

John T. Boyd

Senior Justice

Do not publish.
EXHIBIT 31(a)



I, Thomas A. Renyi, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of The Bank of New York Company, Inc. (the registrant);



2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
annual report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the
financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this annual report;



4. The registrants
other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of
the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and



5. The
registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: March 9, 2004



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|                                       
|/s/    THOMAS A. RENYI                 
|                                       
|Thomas A. Renyi Chief Executive Officer



-1-
NO. 12-14-00018-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ROBERT F. CLAYTON, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 3RD

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is signed by Appellant 

and his counsel. No decision has been delivered in this appeal. Accordingly, Appellant’s motion 

to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

Opinion delivered July 15, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 15, 2015

NO. 12-14-00018-CR

ROBERT F. CLAYTON,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 3rd District Court 

of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 31223)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss 

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and 

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and 

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
[985 NE2d 1227, 963 NYS2d 166]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carl Watson, Appellant.

Argued January 3, 2013;

decided February 7, 2013

*1019APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Lynn W.L. Fahey, Appellate Advocates,*New York City (A. *Alexander Donn*and *Katherine A. Levine*of counsel), for appellant.

*Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney,*Brooklyn *(Camille O’Hara Gillespie*and *Leonard Joblove*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant fatally shot Livingston Powell, and was prosecuted for murder. His defense was justification. Defendant testified at trial that he panicked and shot Powell when he saw Powell reach for his waist. There was no evidence that Powell had a weapon at the time.

Under Penal Law § 35.15, defendant’s shooting of Powell could have been justified only if defendant reasonably believed *1020that Powell was “using or about to use deadly physical force” (Penal Law § 35.15 [2] [a]); however, even if defendant did have such a reasonable belief, the justification defense would not be available if defendant was “the initial aggressor” (Penal Law § 35.15 [1] [b]).

Seeking to prove that the initial aggressor was Powell, not defendant, defendant requested issuance of a subpoena to the district attorney’s office. Defendant sought disclosure of Powell’s “criminal record, and specific acts of violence”; he asked for not only acts known to defendant “but also those unknown.” The trial court ruled that evidence of acts not known to defendant would be inadmissible—a ruling clearly correct under our decisions in *Matter of Robert S.*(52 NY2d 1046 [1981]) and *People v Miller*(39 NY2d 543 [1976]). Defendant asks us to reconsider *Robert S.*and *Miller,*and to hold that a defendant claiming justification may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s violent acts, even those not known to the defendant, to establish that the alleged victim had a propensity for violence.

This case, we conclude, does not present the issue defendant asks us to consider. There is no way a jury could conclude, on this record, that Powell was the “initial aggressor,” no matter how great his propensity for violence, for the simple reason that Powell did not have a gun. Defendant’s evidence could show, at most, that defendant reasonably believed Powell to be the initial aggressor. We assume, without deciding, that such a reasonable belief could sustain a justification defense; even on that assumption, evidence of acts that defendant did not know about was irrelevant, because such acts could not have influenced what defendant reasonably believed.

We express no opinion as to whether *Robert S.*and *Miller*should be reconsidered in a case that properly presents that issue.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott concur.

Order affirmed, in a memorandum.
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 612 

Urging the people of the United States to observe the month of October 

of each year as Italian and Italian-American Heritage Month. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 1, 2019 

Mr. PASCRELL (for himself and Mr. AMODEI) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Urging the people of the United States to observe the month 

of October of each year as Italian and Italian-American 

Heritage Month. 

Whereas Italian and Italian-American Heritage Month is an 

appropriate time to recognize the enormous contributions 

the Italian and Italian-American people have made to 

this country and the world throughout our history, including generals, admirals, doctors, philosophers, statesmen, musicians, athletes, and Nobel laureates; 

Whereas Italian and Italian-American Heritage Month is held 

to salute the Italian and Italian-American community 

and to exhibit appreciation for their culture and their 

heritage that have immeasurably enriched the lives of the 

people of this Nation and the world; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 612 IH 

Whereas the strength and success of the United States, the 

vitality of our communities, and the effectiveness of our 

American society depend, in great measure, upon the distinctive and sterling qualities demonstrated by people of 

diverse races, heritages, and ethnicities, exemplified by 

members of the Italian and Italian-American community, 

who share with us their rich and unique heritage; and 

Whereas it is fitting and proper that October of each year be 

observed as Italian and Italian-American Heritage Month 

throughout the United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That in order to recognize the enormous 

2 contributions Italian and Italian-American people have 

3 made to this country and the world throughout our his4 tory, the House of Representatives urges the people of the 

5 United States to acknowledge Italian and Italian-Amer6 ican Heritage Month and to observe the month with ap7 propriate events and activities. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS