alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1424.10 Board decision and order; compliance. ( a ) Subject to the requirements of this part the Board shall expedite proceedings under this part to the extent practicable and shall issue to the exclusive representative and to the Department a written decision on the allegation and specific reasons therefor at the earliest practicable date.
( b ) If the Board finds that the duty to bargain extends to the matter proposed to be bargained, the decision of the Board shall include an order that the Department shall upon request (or as otherwise agreed to by the parties) bargain concerning such matter. If the Board finds that the duty to bargain does not extend to the matter proposed to be bargained, the Board shall so state and issue an order dismissing the petition for review of the negotiability issue. If the Board finds that the duty to bargain extends to the matter proposed to be bargained only at the election of the Department, the Board shall so state and issue an order dismissing the petition for review of the negotiability issue.
( c ) When an order is issued as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the Department or exclusive representative shall report to the appropriate Regional Director within a specified period failure to comply with an order that the Department shall upon request (or as otherwise agreed to by the parties) bargain concerning the disputed matter. If the Board finds such a failure to comply with its order, the Board shall take whatever action it deems necessary, including enforcement under 22 U.S.C. 4109(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2349

In Re: PHILIP M. KLEINSMITH,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 20, 2004

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Philip M. Kleinsmith, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Philip M. Kleinsmith petitions for writ of mandamus. He

seeks an order enjoining the district court from requiring pro bono

service as a condition of membership in the court’s Bar.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has

a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. &

Loan Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus

is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary

circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S.

394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re

United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). 

The relief sought by Kleinsmith is not available by way

of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of

mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### 562 Eglinton, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Samuel Merlo, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[716 NYS2d 228]

—Order unanimously affirmed'without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to disqualify the law firm representing defendant Samuel Merlo from further representation of Merlo in this action *(see, Tekni-Plex, Inc. v Meyner & Landis,*89 NY2d 123, 131, *rearg denied*89 NY2d 917). The law firm previously represented plaintiffs in connection with a residential development project, and the issues involved therein are substantially related to the subject matter of this declaratory judgment action *(see, Press v Lozier, Inc.,*239 AD2d 879). Whether the law firm obtained “any confidential information in connection with that employment is not determinative” *(Press v Lozier, Inc., supra).*Plaintiffs are entitled to certainty that their interests will not be prejudiced based on that prior representation *(see, Reid Petroleum Corp. v Boller’s Auto Sales & Serv.,*248 AD2d 1016; *Press v Lozier, Inc., supra).*The court also properly denied Merlo’s cross motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice to renew. “Where pertinent facts essential to justify opposition to a motion for summary judgment are exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant and may be revealed through pretrial discovery, summary judgment should be denied” *(Shellberry v Albright,*262 AD2d 942). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Barry, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Balio, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-30925 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TERRANCE TREMAINE GANT, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

(6:03-CR-60046-5)

-------------------- Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Terrance Tremaine Gant appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and cocaine base. Relying on United States v. Cunningham , 429 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2005), he contends that the district court erred as a matter of law in (1) imposing an unreasonable guidelines sentence under the facts of his case and1 United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). 2 (2) doing so without first considering, in response to his request for a sentence below the applicable range, whether a guidelines sentence actually conformed to the statutory factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. We review sentences imposed post- Booker , 1 only for “unreasonableness.” United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Gant does not dispute that his sentence fell within a correctly calculated guidelines range, and thus is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Alonzo , 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). As our review of the sentencing transcript reveals that the district court meaningfully considered the § 3553 factors in fashioning Gant’s sentence, he has not rebutted that presumption. See id. Gant’s reliance on Seventh Circuit authority is therefore unpersuasive. AFFIRMED.
CARBON |

SWEETWATER

Area where surface disturbing
activities would be subject to
increased restrictions in Alternative 3.

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM

Medicine Bow

10 20 40 60 80
Kilometers
Oo 5 10 20 30 40 50
aaa.
Miles
Map 2-57

Greater Sage-Grouse Nesting
Limitation Area for Oil and Gas
Development
## **Exhibit 32.2**

 

**WRITTEN STATEMENT OF JEFFERY M. JACKSON**

 

Onthis day, Sabre Holdings Corporation (the “Company”) filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission a Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the periodending March 31, 2005 (the “Report”)

 

This written statementaccompanied the Report.

 

I,Jeffery M. Jackson, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifythat:

 

(1)     The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)     The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ JEFFERY M. JACKSON                |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Jeffery M. Jackson                                   |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| May 6, 2005                                          |

 

----
### §300ff–29. Technical assistance

The Secretary shall provide technical assistance in administering and coordinating the activities authorized under section 300ff–22 of this title, including technical assistance for the development and implementation of statewide coordinated statements of need.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXVI, §2619, as added Pub. L. 101–381, title II, §201, Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 597; amended Pub. L. 104–146, §3(c)(6), May 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1356; Pub. L. 109–415, title VII, §703, Dec. 19, 2006, 120 Stat. 2820; Pub. L. 111–87, §2(a)(1), (3)(A), Oct. 30, 2009, 123 Stat. 2885.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2009—Pub. L. 111–87 repealed Pub. L. 109–415, §703, and revived the provisions of this section as in effect on Sept. 30, 2009. See 2006 Amendment note and Effective Date of 2009 Amendment; Revival of Section note below.

2006—Pub. L. 109–415, §703, which directed repeal of this section effective Oct. 1, 2009, was itself repealed by Pub. L. 111–87, §2(a)(1), effective Sept. 30, 2009.

1996—Pub. L. 104–146 substituted "shall" for "may" and inserted ", including technical assistance for the development and implementation of statewide coordinated statements of need" before period at end.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2009 Amendment; Revival of Section

For provisions that repeal by section 2(a)(1) of Pub. L. 111–87 of section 703 of Pub. L. 109–415 be effective Sept. 30, 2009, and that the provisions of this section as in effect on Sept. 30, 2009, be revived, see section 2(a)(2), (3)(A) of Pub. L. 111–87, set out as a note under section 300ff–11 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–146 effective Oct. 1, 1996, and amendment by section 6(c)(1)(A) of Pub. L. 104–146 effective May 20, 1996, see section 13 of Pub. L. 104–146, set out as a note under section 300ff–11 of this title.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Harry Richards, Appellant, v Jack Czarnetsky, as Superintendent of Eastern New York Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Motion for permission to appeal to this court denied, as unnecessary, without costs. The judgment dated March 10, 1977, denying appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus, is appealable as of right (CPLR 7011). Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
#### § 1506.1 What is the purpose of this part?

This part prescribes the standards and procedures to be used by the United States African Development Foundation (USADF) in the collection and disposal of non-tax debts owed to USADF and the United States. It covers USADF's collection, compromise, suspension, termination, and referral of claims to the Department of Justice.
Exhibit 32
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


         In  connection  with the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report  of  Internet
Infinity, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31,
2005 (the "Report"),  I, Roger Casas,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,
hereby certify that to my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

         (2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  February 14, 2006

                                                      /s/ Roger Casas
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Roger Casas
                                                     Chief Executive Officer


         The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.1350)  and is not being filed as
part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FORM THE REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1997, WHICH INCLUDES THE UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE
REGISTRANT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,024,302
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,877,446
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,402,244
<PP&E>                                      61,104,555
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,652,751
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              57,287,745
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,429,241
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        87,019
<OTHER-SE>                                  37,911,669
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                57,287,745
<SALES>                                      7,855,850
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,000,426
<CGS>                                        1,649,820
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,908,886
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             153,049
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,015,266)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,442,844)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,572,422)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,572,422)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.41)
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 5, 2019

No. 04-19-00774-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM H. MCNUTT,

From the County Court, Kimble County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2284

Honorable Joe Loving, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On October 30, 2019, Appellant Sherry McNutt filed a notice of appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.1(a). The same day, a deputy clerk of this court notified Appellant in writing that our 

records do not show that the $205.00 filing fee has been paid. Further, our records do not 

conclusively establish that Appellant is excused by statute or rule from paying the filing fee. See

id. R. 5 (requiring fees in civil cases); id. R. 20.1 (waiving appellate court costs under certain 

circumstances). 

Our October 30, 2019 letter warned Appellant that if the filing fee was not paid by 

November 12, 2019, the appeal could be stricken by this court. To date, this court has not 

received payment or a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs. See id.; see also

TEX. R. CIV. P. 145.

Our letter also advised Appellant that the docketing statement must be filed with this 

court by November 12, 2019. See id. R. 32.1; 4TH TEX. APP. (SAN ANTONIO) LOC. R. 5.2, 

http://www.txcourts.gov/4thcoa/practice-before-the-court/local-rules.aspx. To date, no 

docketing statement has been filed. 

We ORDER Appellant to file a docketing statement within TEN DAYS of the date of 

this order. 

We ORDER Appellant to show cause in writing within TEN DAYS of the date of this 

order that either (1) the $205.00 filing fee has been paid, or (2) Appellant is entitled to appeal 

without paying the filing fee. 

If Appellant fails to respond as ordered, this appeal will be dismissed without further 

notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3(c); In re W.J.C., No. 04-05-00532-CV, 2005 WL 3477883 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 21, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.). 
_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of December, 2019.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
North Indian |
Springs |

[J Coal Development Potential Areas

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM

|
|
|
|

0) 10 20 40 60 80 100
Kilometers
o 5 10 20 30 40 50
Miles

Map A2-1

Coal Development Potential
<PAGE> 1
                    CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                               OF
                  CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                               OF
                 THE SABRE GROUP HOLDINGS, INC.

     I, the undersigned, being the Corporate Secretary of The
Sabre Group Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Corporation"), do hereby certify on behalf of the Corporation as
follows:

     FIRST:    That Article I of the Certificate of Incorporation
               of the Corporation be, and it hereby is, amended
               to read as follows:

                    "ARTICLE I

                         The name of the corporation (which
                    is hereinafter referred to as the
                    "Corporation") is:

                    Sabre Holdings Corporation"

     SECOND:   That the amendment set forth above (the
               "Amendment") was duly adopted in accordance with
               the provisions of Section 242 of the General
               Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

     THIRD:    Pursuant to Section 103(d) of the General
               Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, the
               Amendment shall not be effective until July 30,
               1999.

     FOURTH:   That the Corporation's capital shall not be
               reduced under or by reason of the Amendment.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this certificate this 28th
day of June, 1999.


                                   /s/ Andrew B. Steinberg
                                   ______________________________
                                   Andrew B. Steinberg
                                   Corporate Secretary
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ECOPY, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 08-04227 JSW

No. C 08-04942 JSW

No. C 08-02912 JSW

ORDER ADOPTING

RECOMMENDATION OF

SPECIAL MASTER RE ORDER

OF PATENTS

The Court has reviewed Special Master Meredith Martin Addy’s Recommendation

dated June 14, 2010 regarding the order of patents, claims and terms to be adjudicated and

adopts it in every respect.

Furthermore, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the Special Master shall appear at the

case management conference set for July 2, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. and shall be prepared to meet

with the parties to mediate the selection of the ten terms to be construed during the Markman

process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-02912-JSW Document 207 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 1
### §17251. Carbon capture

#### (a) Program establishment

#### (1) In general

The Secretary shall carry out a program to demonstrate technologies for the large-scale capture of carbon dioxide from industrial sources. In making awards under this program, the Secretary shall select, as appropriate, a diversity of capture technologies to address the need to capture carbon dioxide from a range of industrial sources.

#### (2) Scope of award

Awards under this section shall be only for the portion of the project that—

(A) carries out the large-scale capture (including purification and compression) of carbon dioxide from industrial sources;

(B) provides for the transportation and injection of carbon dioxide; and

(C) incorporates a comprehensive measurement, monitoring, and validation program.

#### (3) Preferences for award

To ensure reduced carbon dioxide emissions, the Secretary shall take necessary actions to provide for the integration of the program under this paragraph with the large-scale carbon dioxide sequestration tests described in section 16293(c) of this title. These actions should not delay implementation of these tests. The Secretary shall give priority consideration to projects with the following characteristics:

#### (A) Capacity

Projects that will capture a high percentage of the carbon dioxide in the treated stream and large volumes of carbon dioxide as determined by the Secretary.

#### (B) Sequestration

Projects that capture carbon dioxide from industrial sources that are near suitable geological reservoirs and could continue sequestration including—

(i) a field testing validation activity under section 16293 of this title; or

(ii) other geologic sequestration projects approved by the Secretary.

#### (4) Requirement

For projects that generate carbon dioxide that is to be sequestered, the carbon dioxide stream shall be of a sufficient purity level to allow for safe transport and sequestration.

#### (5) Cost-sharing

The cost-sharing requirements of section 16352 of this title for research and development projects shall apply to this section.

#### (b) Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section $200,000,000 per year for fiscal years 2009 through 2013.

(Pub. L. 110–140, title VII, §703, Dec. 19, 2007, 121 Stat. 1708; Pub. L. 116–260, div. Z, title IV, §4003(c)(1), Dec. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 2539.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2020—Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 116–260 substituted "section 16293(c)" for "section 16293(c)(3)".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective on the date that is 1 day after Dec. 19, 2007, see section 1601 of Pub. L. 110–140, set out as a note under section 1824 of Title 2, The Congress.

#### Short Title

Subtitle A (§§701–708) of title VII of Pub. L. 110–140, which is classified principally to this part, is known as the "Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Sequestration Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007". See Short Title note set out under section 17001 of this title.
#### § 236.3 The Guarantee.

Subject to the terms and conditions set out in this part, the United States of America, acting through USAID, guarantees to Noteholders the Borrower's repayment of 100 percent of principal and interest due on Eligible Notes. Under the Guarantee, USAID agrees to pay to any Noteholder compensation in Dollars equal to such Noteholder's Loss of Investment under its Eligible Note; provided, however, that no such payment shall be made to any Noteholder for any such loss arising out of fraud or misrepresentation for which such Noteholder is responsible or of which it had knowledge at the time it became such Noteholder. The Guarantee shall apply to each Eligible Note registered on the Note Register required to be maintained by the Fiscal Agent.