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

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-11242

Summary Calendar

 

LAWRENCE C. LEWIS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:97-CV-1683-P

__________________________________________

January 28, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

LawrenceC. Lewis, Texasstate prisoner # 373622, appealsfromthe district court’s dismissal

of his federal habeas corpus petition as barred by the one year statute of limitations set forth in 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). This court granted COA on the statute-of-limitations issue. Lewis argues that

the district court erred in dismissing his federal habeas petition as barred by the one-year statute of

limitations of § 2244(d)(1) because hisfirst state habeas application tolled the period oflimitation for

purposes of § 2244(d)(2), rendering hisfederal petition timelyfiled. We now have the benefit of two

opinions rendered by this court after the district court dismissed Lewis’s petition.
2

A habeas petitioner whose claims otherwise would be time-barred because the limitations

period would have expired before the effective date of the AEDPA had a one-year “reasonableness

period” or until April 24, 1997, to file his habeas petition. Flanagan v. Johnson, 154 F.3d 196, 200-

02 (5th Cir. 1998). Although Lewis did not file his federal habeas petition on or before April 24,

1997, under § 2244(d)(2), the time during which a properly filed application forstate post-conviction

or other collateral review is pending does not count toward the period of limitation. § 2244(d)(2).

The pendency of Lewis’s first state habeas application, which was denied on August 28, 1996, tolled

the one-year reasonableness period for the more than four monthsthat it was pending during the oneyear reasonableness period, rendering Lewis’s July 14, 1997, federal habeas petition timely filed.

Fields v. Johnson, 159 F.3d 914, 916 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment dismissing Lewis’s § 2254 petition astime-barred

is VACATED, and the cause is REMANDED for further proceedings.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
V 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3995 

To authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor to Major Charles 

S. Kettles of the United States Army for acts of valor during the 

Vietnam War. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 5, 2015 

Mrs. DINGELL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor 

to Major Charles S. Kettles of the United States Army 

for acts of valor during the Vietnam War. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR AWARD OF THE MEDAL OF 

4 HONOR TO CHARLES S. KETTLES FOR ACTS 

5 OF VALOR DURING THE VIETNAM WAR. 

6 (a) WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS.—Notwith7 standing the time limitations specified in section 3744 of 

8 title 10, United States Code, or any other time limitation 

9 with respect to the awarding of certain medals to persons 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3995 IH

1 who served in the Armed Forces, the President may award 

2 the Medal of Honor under section 3741 of such title to 

3 Charles S. Kettles for the acts of valor during the Vietnam 

4 War described in subsection (b). 

5 (b) ACTS OF VALOR DESCRIBED.—The acts of valor 

6 referred to in subsection (a) are the actions of Charles 

7 S. Kettles during combat operations on May 15, 1967, 

8 while serving as Flight Commander, 176th Aviation Com9 pany, 14th Aviation Battalion, Task Force Oregon, Re10 public of Vietnam, for which he was previously awarded 

11 the Distinguished Service Cross. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### §1767. Repealed. Pub. L. 85–141, §11(d), Aug. 14, 1957, 71 Stat. 365

Section, act Aug. 26, 1954, ch. 937, title V, §547, 68 Stat. 864, provided for a general limitation on authorizations.
# C_2012119EN.01000901.xml

| 24.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/9

---

Notice concerning the anti-dumping measures in force in respect of imports into the Union of ceramic tiles originating in the People's Republic of China: change of the name of a company subject to an average anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating companies

2012/C 119/06

Imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People's Republic of China are subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty, imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 (1) (‘Regulation (EU) No 917/2011’).

1

Heyuan Wanfeng Ceramics Co., Ltd, a company located in the People's Republic of China, whose exports to the Union of ceramic tiles are subject to an average anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating companies of 30,6 % imposed pursuant to Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 917/2011, has informed the Commission that on 28 September 2011 it has changed its name to Guangdong Luxury Micro-crystal Stone Technology Co., Ltd.

The company has argued that the change of name does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the average duty rate for cooperating companies applied to the company under its previous name of Heyuan Wanfeng Ceramics Co., Ltd.

The Commission has examined the information supplied and concluded that the change of name in no way affects the findings of Regulation (EU) No 917/2011. Therefore, the reference in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 to:

Heyuan Wanfeng Ceramics Co., Ltd

should be read as:

Guangdong Luxury Micro-crystal Stone Technology Co., Ltd.

The TARIC additional code B195 previously attributed to Heyuan Wanfeng Ceramics Co., Ltd shall apply to Guangdong Luxury Micro-crystal Stone Technology Co., Ltd.

---

(1)  OJ L 238, 15.9.2011, p. 1.

1

---
### Part 1—Panama Canal Commission
§ 404.1054 Payments by an employer of employee's tax or employee's contribution under State law. ( a ) We exclude as wages any payment by an employer (described in paragraph (b) of this section) that is not deducted from the employee's salary (or for which reimbursement is not made by the employee) of either— ( 1 ) The tax imposed by section 3101 of the Code (employee's share of *Social Security tax*); or
( 2 ) Any payment required from an employee under a State unemployment compensation law.
( b ) The payments described in paragraph (a) of this section are not included as wages only if they are made by an employer on behalf of an employee employed in— ( 1 ) Domestic service in the private home of the employer; or
( 2 ) Agricultural labor.
[55 FR 7310, Mar. 1, 1990]
Exhibit 99.1
                                 ------------




                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                       ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2005-19CB
             MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-19CB


         The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(a "Master Servicer"), and do hereby further certify pursuant to Section 3.16
of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under our supervision; and

(ii) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                       Dated: March 28, 2006
----------------

CRAIG BAINGO
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT



/s/ Kevin Meyers                                       Dated: March 28, 2006
----------------

KEVIN MEYERS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER, LOAN ADMINISTRATION
### MANDATE



## Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 14

- 00269

- CV

ADOLFO R. MARTINEZ , Appellant

V.

NOEL P. BENAVIDES, P ABLO A. MARTINEZ, IN C., DR. JAVIER TADEO RAMIREZ, JUDITH CHRISTINA R. BARRERA , INDIVIDUALLY AND A S

EXECUTRIX OF THE EST ATE OF EVANGELINA H. RAMIREZ, MARIA CECIL IA R. BENAVIDES, INDIVI DUALLY AND AS EXECUT RIX OF THE ESTATE OF

EVANGELINA H. RAMIRE Z, CLAUDIA RAMIREZ M ATHERS, AND LETICIA R.

REYES , Appellees

Appeal from the 229th District Court of Starr County. (Tr. Ct. No. DC

- 03

- 350).

TO THE 229TH DISTRICT COURT OF STARR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 31st day of March 2015, the case upon appeal to revise

or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on December 9, 2013. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that there was error in the portion of the tr ial court’s judgment that dismissed appellant’s claims with prejudice. Accordingly, the Court

modifies the referenced portion of the trial court’s judgment to strike the words “with prejudice,” and remands the case to the trial court for an oral hearing o n the motion to reinstate.The Court orders that the appellant, Adolfo R. Martinez, pay one half of the appellate costs. The Court

orders that the appellees, Noel P. Benavides, Pablo A. Martinez, Inc., Dr. Javier Tadeo Ramirez, Judith Christina R.

Barr era, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Evangelina H. Ramirez, Maria Cecilia R. Benavides, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Evangelina H. Ramirez, Claudia Ramirez Mathers, and Leticia R. Reyes, jointly and severally, pay one half of the appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below

for observance.

Judgment rendered March 31, 2015.

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Huddle. Opinion delivered by Justice Huddle.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

June 12, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
### §2173. Repealed. Pub. L. 87–565, pt. I, §103(c), Aug. 1, 1962, 76 Stat. 256

Section, Pub. L. 87–195, pt. I, §213, Sept. 4, 1961, 75 Stat. 428, related to peaceful use of atomic energy outside United States. See section 2171 of this title.
Exhibit 99.2









Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Management of Protective Life Insurance Company and The Bank of New York, as Indenture Trustee of Protective
Life Secured Trust 2005-10, (collectively the "Management")
and Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee of Protective Life Secured Trust 2005-10 (the "Trust"):

We have examined Management's assertion, included in the accompanying "Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)," that the collection of payments on the funding agreements and distribution of payments to the noteholders has occurred as required by Section 5.02 of the Indenture agreement dated November 7, 2003 between the Trust and the Indenture Trustee during the year ended December 31, 2005.  Management is responsible for the assertion.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting management's assertion and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, Management's assertion referred to above is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on the criteria defined in the accompanying "Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)."



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Birmingham, AlabamaMarch 31, 2006











Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust
Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)





Management of the Trust asserts that it has collected payments on the funding agreements and distributed payments to the noteholders as required by Section 5.02 of the Indenture agreement dated November 7, 2003 between the Trust and the Indenture Trustee for the year ended December 31, 2005.  This assertion is based on the following criteria:

1. The payments made by Protective Life on the funding agreements that secured the Notes, for the year ended December 31, 2005, are included in Protective Life's Secured Trusts P & I Payments: 1/1/05 through 12/31/05 (P & I Payments report).
2. The payments made by Protective Life on the funding agreements that secured the Notes, for the year ended December 31, 2005, are included in the Indenture Trustee's History of Transactions List.
3. The amounts due on the Notes are reported as a component of the charges from Cede & Co., the nominee of the Depository Trust Company, on the Indenture Trustee's Payment Obligation Report System (PORS Report).
4. Charges from Cede & Co. are included in the Indenture Trustee's screen prints titled The Depository Trust Company Activity History Details, which represent the charge confirmations to Cede & Co., the nominee of the Depository Trust Company.
Honorable GeorgeR. Sheppard

ComptrolleFof Public Accounts Austin, Texas
DsarSir: OpinionNo. O-2747 Re: Claim of Pan American Cattle Company on alleged overpayment of franchise tax.
We acknowledge receipt of your letter of September 15, 1940, in which you request thatwe examine the attached claim.of the Pan American Cattle Company in the amount of $13.20. Informationmade available to us Indicatesthat this claim Is based upon an alleged overpaymentof franchise taxes growing out of a franchise tax report filed by a corporation with the Secretary of State in the early part of 1932. A warrant in the amount of $13.20was issuedJune 

### 16,1933, pursuant to appropriationmade by Rouse Bill No. 919, 43ra Legislature,Regular Session. Thi.$ warrant was cancelled by your office on September 12, 1935.

The franchisereport upon which this claim isbased was prepared and filed by the corporationnow claiming the right to a refund in the amount of $13.20. Therewas no protest in payment and no effort appeared to have been made on the part of the Secretary of State to demand or enforcepayment of any particular sum. We think it clear that the Pan American Cattle Company is in this Instancea volunteer taxpayer, a taxpayerwho has voluntarilymade an overpayment has no legal claim against the State. An appropriationwhich in not supportedby legal claim is void and unconstitutional in that lt violatesArticle 

### 3, paragraph 44, of the Constftutlon of Texas which prohibits appropriationbased on claims not provided for by pre-existing law. See Corsioana Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Sheppard, Comptroller, et al, 71 S.W. (2d) 247.

It Is the oplnlon of this offlce that the Pan American Cattle Company has no legal claim against the State and the claim submitted to us for examlnatlon is thereforedlsapproved.Honorable!George.B;Sheppard, page'::!. ~( ,0-2747 :.’

,,, :.,, 4: ,

:Xoursvery truly
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

By s/ Ross Carlton Ross Carlton Assistant
RC:GO:wc

APPROVED OCT 

### 15, 1940 s/GroverSellers FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL Approved Oplnlon CommitteeBy s/BWB Chairman
§ 404.726 Evidence of common-law marriage. ( a ) *General.* A *common-law marriage* is one considered valid under certain State laws even though there was no formal ceremony. It is a marriage between two persons free to marry, who consider themselves married, live together as man and wife, and, in some States, meet certain other requirements. We will ask for the evidence described in this section.
( b ) *Preferred evidence.* Preferred evidence of a common-law marriage is— ( 1 ) If both the husband and wife are alive, their signed statements and those of two blood relatives;
( 2 ) If either the husband or wife is dead, the signed statements of the one who is alive and those of two blood relatives of the deceased person; or
( 3 ) If both the husband and wife are dead, the signed statements of one blood relative of each; Note:
All signed statements should show why the signer believes there was a marriage between the two persons. If a written statement cannot be gotten from a blood relative, one from another person can be used instead.
( c ) *Other evidence of common-law marriage.* If you cannot get preferred evidence of a common-law marriage, we will ask you to explain why and to give us other convincing evidence of the marriage. We may not ask you for statements from a blood relative or other person if we believe other evidence presented to us proves the common-law marriage.
###### Editorial Note on Part 416

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

#### § 416.1334 Termination due to death of recipient.

Eligibility for benefits ends with the month in which the recipient dies. Payments are terminated effective with the month after the month of death.
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





In connection with the Annual Report of
SRKP 2, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Anthony C. Pintsopoulos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my knowledge:





(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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/
      Anthony C. PintsopoulosAnthony
      C. PintsopoulosPrincipal
      Financial OfficerFebruary
      18, 2009
# app. 1 - wastewater

# app. 2 - pharmaceutical

&P/&N	

# app.3 - hormones_sterols

&P/&N	

# app. 4 - QA results

&P/&N	

# app.5 sums of wastewater comps
#### § 261.10 Increase in future benefits where time period for reopening has expired.

If, after the time period for reopening under § 261.2(b) of this part has expired, new evidence is furnished showing a different date of birth or new evidence is furnished which would cause a correction in a record of compensation as provided for in part 211 of this chapter and, as a result of the new evidence, increased benefits would be payable, the Board will pay increased benefits, but only for the months following the month the new evidence is received.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 181

 170

 166

 157

 157

 152

 154

 151

 151

 168

 165

 150

 148

 139

 141

 116

 125

 114

 118

 108

 92

 105

 137

 134

 128

 121

 127

 147

 168

 147

 135

 133

 125

 117

 125

 122

 124

 121

 127

 118

 119

 117

 109

 92

 87

 89

 83

 88

 83

 86

 74

 57

 62

 71

 77

 81

 84

 89

 91

 91

 99

 95

 154

 150

 146

 143

 139

 138

 136

 137

 134

 141

 139

 130

 118

 111

 111

 103

 105

 102

 102

 95

 79

 79

 94

 101

 101

 99

 105

 112

 123

 121

 115

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MAY 2005 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 22, 2005

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIO VISTA ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
---

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Roger Liere, Chief Executive Officer of Vitavea Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company, for the
      fiscal year ended October 31, 2006, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                      



| | By:    | /s/ Roger Liere            
| | ------ | ---------------------------
| |        |                            
| | Name:  | ROGER LIERE                
| |        |                            
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and
| |        | President                  
| |        |                            
| | Date:  | February 12, 2007          



A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the
Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-KSB to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-KSB), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---