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

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-09-00394-CR

WILLIAM CHARLES WEBB,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009-1263-C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal of the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s request for bond 

reduction pending trial. Appellant’s counsel and the district clerk have notified this 

Court that Appellant was convicted under a guilty plea.

This appeal is dismissed as moot. See Oldham v. State, 5 S.W.3d 840, 846 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d) (“Issues concerning pretrial bail are moot 

after the accused is convicted.”); see also Ex parte Smith, No. 09-06-397-CR, 2006 WL 

3438083 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Nov. 29, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.) (not designated for 
Webb v. State Page 2

publication) (dismissing as moot appeal on pretrial bail reduction because of appellant’s 

guilty plea).

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed June 16, 2010

Do not publish

[CR25]
#### Ramon DeLeon et al., Respondents, v J & J Towing, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[822 NYS2d 120]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings *987County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated September 8, 2005, which, upon reargument, in effect, vacated its prior order dated March 9, 2005, granting their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Ramon DeLeon did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) and denied the motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly treated the motion of the plaintiff Ramon DeLeon (hereinafter the plaintiff) as one for leave to reargue rather than as one for leave to renew. The new affirmed report submitted by the plaintiffs physician did not offer new facts which were unavailable at the time of the original motion. Rather, it demonstrated that the Supreme Court had overlooked or misapprehended certain facts contained in the original affirmed reports. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, vacated its prior order and denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment *(see McNeil v Dixon,*9 AD3d 481 [2004]).

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by way of the affirmed report of Dr. Olson. In opposition, the plaintiff proffered the affirmed reports of Dr. Hausknecht, who alleged, inter alia, that he had measured the plaintiffs range of motion using an arthroidal protractor and found that he suffered a loss of 25% right lateral flexion and left lateral flexion in his cervical spine, as well as a 25% loss of forward flexion in his lumbar spine. This was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury *(see DiFilippo v Jones,*22 AD3d 788 [2005]; *Desulme v Stanya,*12 AD3d 557 [2004]; *see also Mi Ja Lee v Glicksman,*14 AD3d 669 [2005]; *cf. Vishnevsky v Glassberg,*29 AD3d 680 [2006]; *Pimentel v Mesa,*28 AD3d 629 [2006]). Florio, J.P., Skelos, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
### Part B—Sudden Unexpected Infant Death, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, and Sudden Unexpected Death in Childhood

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 116–273, §2(1), Dec. 31, 2020, 134 Stat. 3352, substituted "Sudden Unexpected Infant Death, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, and Sudden Unexpected Death in Childhood" for "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome" in part heading.

Pub. L. 94–278, title IV, §403(b)(2), Apr. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 409, redesignated part C heading as part B heading.
```

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                          **CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL
                          FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bekem Metals, Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Yermek
Kudabayev, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

Date: May 19, 2006                                    /s/ Yermek Kudabayev
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Yermek Kudabayev,
                                                     Principal Financial Officer
```
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14(a) AND15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Rajesh Vashist, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of IkanosCommunications, Inc. (the “Company”);

 

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

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company asof, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have:

 

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the Company, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recentfiscal quarter (the Company’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and

 

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting.

 

Date: May 17, 2006

 

 
|   | /s/ RAJESH VASHIST                                            |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Rajesh Vashist                                                |
|   | President, Chief Executive Officer and  Chairman of the Board |

 

----
### §3708. Protests

(a) Protest File.—

(1) Establishment and access.—If, in the case of a solicitation for a contract issued by, or an award or proposed award of a contract by, the head of an executive agency, a protest is filed pursuant to the procedures in subchapter V of chapter 35 of title 31, and an actual or prospective offeror requests, a file of the protest shall be established by the procuring activity and reasonable access shall be provided to actual or prospective offerors.

(2) Redacted information.—Information exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5 may be redacted in a file established pursuant to paragraph (1) unless an applicable protective order provides otherwise.

(b) Agency Actions on Protests.—If, in connection with a protest, the head of an executive agency determines that a solicitation, proposed award, or award does not comply with the requirements of law or regulation, the head of the executive agency may—

(1) take any action set out in subparagraphs (A) to (F) of subsection (b)(1) of section 3554 of title 31; and

(2) pay costs described in paragraph (1) of section 3554(c) of title 31 within the limits referred to in paragraph (2) of section 3554(c).

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3773.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3708(a) | 41:253b(k). | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title III, §303B(k), formerly §303B(h), as added Pub. L. 103–355, title I, §1065, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3269; redesignated as §303B(k), Pub. L. 104–106, title XLI, §4104(b)(2), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 645; Pub. L. 104–106, title XLI, §5607(c), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 701, as amended Pub. L. 104–201, title X, §1074(b)(7) (less effective date), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2660. |
| 3708(b) | 41:253b(l). | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title III, §303B(l), formerly §303B(i), as added Pub. L. 103–355, title I, §1066, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3269; redesignated as §303B(l), Pub. L. 104–106, title XLI, §4104(b)(2), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 645. |

Section
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in each of the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-53222), Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-86968) and the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-107079) pertaining to TradeStation Group, Inc. and Subsidiariesof our reports dated February 7, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of TradeStation Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries, TradeStation Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries management’s assessment of the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of TradeStation Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries, included in this annual report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Certified Public Accountants 

FortLauderdale, Florida, 

March 6, 2006.
## History Forms Files Submit

[ICR No. 2374.02] 2060-NEW - Corporate ID Reportin g Rule Instructions for Part 2 You are not permitted to edit this package at this time!
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION WORKSHEET Part 2: IC Details
Title Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases

- Corporate ID Rule Amendment

Yes No N/A Is this a Common Form? Voluntary Required to obtain or retain benefits Mandatory Obligation to respond Frequency of reporting (check all that apply) Hourly (40 per week) Daily Weekly (52 per year) Monthly Yearly Every Decade Quarterly Semi-annually Biennially Once Occasionally

CFR Citation(s) for the information collection under review (if applicable). Current Citations 40CFR98 Delete

[No instruments have been added] Instruments
Add New Instrument

[No attachments have been added] Additional Documents
Add New Document

See the Reference Model Mapping Quick Guide for the Business Reference Model categories and def initions. Federal Enterprise Architecture Business Reference Model (Required for any Reporting Requirements) Line of Business Environmental Management Subfunction Environmental Monitoring and Forecasting

Title: Privacy Act System of

Records (if applicable)

Federal Register

Citation Volume Page number Publication date (mm/dd/yyyy)

Respondents Total # 10551 Small Entity # 0 Percent Electronic 100 Individuals or households Private Sector State, Local, or Tribal Governments Federal Government Affected Public

Business or other for-profits Not-for-profit institutions Farms If Affected Public is Private Sector check all the following that apply

Number of Responses per Respondent 6.0411335418 Time period basis for

each response Year
Calculated: Annual Frequency = 6.0411335418 times per year (per respondent)
Calculated: Annual Number of Responses = 63740 a year 

# Page 1 of 2 Information Collection Request, Review, and Approva l System (ICRAS)

8/30/2010 http://epa.paperworkreduction.gov/lo/modern/package /inbox/pkg/7668/part2s/edit/17692Capital and O&M Costs (this should not include labo r costs) Burden Hours Time per Response Hour per Response Annual

Hour Burden Reporting 0.1488390336 in = Hours 0.1488390336 9487.0000016640 Record keeping 0 in = Hours 0 0 Third party disclosure 0 in = Hours 0 0 Total 0.1488390336 9487.0000016640

Cost per Response Annual

Cost Burden Reporting $ 0.0000000000 $0.0000000000 Record keeping $ 0.0000000000 $0.0000000000 Third party disclosure $ 0.0000000000 $0.0000000000 Total $0.0000000000 $0.0000000000 Annual Responses and Burden Program Change:

Total Requested Due to New Statute Due to

Office Discretion Due to Adjustment in Office Estimate Change Due to Violation Currently Approved Annual Responses =

63,740 0 + 63,740 + 0 + 0 + 0 Annual Hour Burden =

9,487 0 + 9,487 + 0 + 0 + 0
Annual Cost Burden =

0 $ 0 + $ 0 + $ 0 + $ 0 + $ 0



## Save Draft **Save & Validate** 

# Page 2 of 2 Information Collection Request, Review, and Approva l System (ICRAS)

8/30/2010 http://epa.paperworkreduction.gov/lo/modern/package /inbox/pkg/7668/part2s/edit/17692
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pubic Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of November 22, 2004: 

A Closed Meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 2 p.m. 

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present. 

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting. 

Commissioner Campos, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session. 

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 23, 2004 will be: 

Formal orders of investigations; 

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; 

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; and 

Adjudicatory matters. 

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: 

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070. 

Dated: November 16, 2004. 

Jonathan G. Katz, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 04-25797 Filed 11-17-04; 11:36 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

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.

May 2, 2016

a0418 

# Order

Clerk May 2, 2016

151755

ANTONIO HILL,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 151755

COA: 320884

Oakland CC: 2013

- 132180

- CZ

ESSENTIAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR

INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE LLC and

YOLANDA WALKER,

Defendants

- Appellees.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 12, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals is con sidered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### §11343. Purposes of grants

#### (a) Eligible activities

Grants to the National Board may be used—

(1) to supplement and expand ongoing efforts to provide shelter, food, and supportive services for homeless individuals with sensitivity to the transition from temporary shelter to permanent homes, and attention to the special needs of homeless individuals with mental and physical disabilities and illnesses, and to facilitate access for homeless individuals to other sources of services and benefits;

(2) to strengthen efforts to create more effective and innovative local programs by providing funding for them; and

(3) to conduct minimum rehabilitation of existing mass shelter or mass feeding facilities, but only to the extent necessary to make facilities safe, sanitary, and bring them into compliance with local building codes.

#### (b) Limitations on activities

(1) The National Board may only provide funding provided under this part for—

(A) programs undertaken by private nonprofit organizations and local governments; and

(B) programs that are consistent with the purposes of this subchapter.

(2) The National Board may not carry out programs directly.

(Pub. L. 100–77, title III, §313, July 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 492.)
### Part D—Women, Infants, Children, and Youth

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Part D of title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, comprising this part, was originally added to act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, by Pub. L. 101–381, title IV, §401, Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 617, and amended by Pub. L. 104–146, May 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1346; Pub. L. 102–531, Oct. 27, 1992, 106 Stat. 3469; Pub. L. 106–345, Oct. 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 1319; Pub. L. 108–173, Dec. 8, 2003, 117 Stat. 2066. Part D is shown herein, however, as having been added by Pub. L. 109–415, title IV, §401, Dec. 19, 2006, 120 Stat. 2810, without reference to those intervening amendments because of the extensive revision of part D by Pub. L. 109–415.
#### The People of the State of New York v. Vincenzo Fiore.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3417 

To amend the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to modify 

requirements relating to an addition to Corridor O in Pennsylvania 

on the Appalachian development highway system. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 14, 2011 

Mr. MARINO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to modify requirements relating to an addition to 

Corridor O in Pennsylvania on the Appalachian development highway system. 

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

3 SECTION 1. APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYS4 TEM. 

5 The last sentence of section 1117(d) of the Transpor6 tation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 161) 

7 is amended by striking ‘‘designated addition shall not afVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:29 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3417.IH H3417

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3417 IH

1 fect estimates of the cost to complete such system and 

2 such’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### § 1.7 Scope of rules in this subpart.

The rules in this subpart apply to and govern proceedings for the promulgation of rules as provided in section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). Such rules will be known as trade regulation rules. All other rulemaking proceedings will be governed by the rules in subpart C of this part, except as otherwise required by law or as otherwise specified in this chapter.

[86 FR 38547, July 22, 2021]
April 20, 2020

SBA Disaster Assistance Update 

 EIDL Advance

 COVID-19

 

Advances Processed 755,476 Total Dollars $3,293,963,000

 

1 Figures as of 4/19/20

STATE PROCESSED DOLLARS STATE PROCESSED DOLLARS

Alabama 9,173 $40,928,000 Iowa 3,668 $17,531,000

Alaska 1,608 $7,393,000 Kansas 5,219 $24,205,000

Arkansas 5,002 $21,974,000 Kentucky 6,112 $27,008,000

Arizona 14,070 $63,922,000 Louisiana 16,527 $69,080,000

California 114,980 $484,604,000 Maine 3,145 $14,222,000

Colorado 15,592 $68,680,000 Maryland 12,462 $56,961,000

Connecticut 9,549 $41,498,000 Massachusetts 16,538 $76,026,000

Delaware 1,922 $8,802,000 Michigan 19,219 $90,195,000

Florida 68,130 $272,650,000 Minnesota 9,892 $46,641,000

Georgia 27,222 $113,401,000 Mississippi 6,293 $26,652,000

Hawaii 5,233 $20,198,000 Missouri 10,000 $45,930,000

Idaho 3,558 $15,394,000 Montana 2,697 $11,452,000

Illinois 27,550 $123,101,000 Nebraska 3,232 $15,660,000

Indiana 9,658 $46,267,000 Nevada 8,157 $33,415,000
SBA Disaster Assistance Update

EIDL Advance

COVID-19

2 Figures as of 4/19/20

STATE PROCESSED DOLLARS STATE PROCESSED DOLLARS

New Hampshire 3,715 $17,268,000 Texas 63,815 $287,726,000

New Jersey 24,942 $105,741,000 Utah 6,436 $30,419,000

New Mexico 3,325 $15,061,000 Vermont 1,736 $7,755,000

New York 51,428 $211,161,000 Virginia 18,505 $85,178,000

North Carolina 19,690 $88,323,000 Washington 18,867 $82,194,000

North Dakota 1,601 $7,338,000 West Virginia 2,247 $10,197,000

Ohio 17,844 $80,656,000 Wisconsin 9,001 $42,993,000

Oklahoma 8,118 $35,543,000 Wyoming 1,597 $6,782,000

Oregon 10,914 $48,197,000 American Samoa 22 $134,000

Pennsylvania 24,731 $108,820,000 District of Columbia 1,997 $10,476,000

Rhode Island 2,740 $12,299,000 Guam 96 $479,000

South Carolina 9,658 $43,222,000 Northern Mariana 21 $117,000

South Dakota 2,249 $9,812,000 Puerto Rico 1,366 $6,684,000

Tennessee 12,135 $54,290,00 U.S. Virgin Islands 272 $1,308,000