alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

SANDEE BRYAN MARION

 CHIEF JUSTICE

KAREN ANGELINI

MARIALYN BARNARD

REBECA C. MARTINEZ

PATRICIA O. ALVAREZ

LUZ ELENA D. CHAPA

IRENE RIOS

 JUSTICES

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

CADENA-REEVES JUSTICE CENTER 

300 DOLOROSA, SUITE 3200

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205-3037

WWW.TXCOURTS.GOV/4THCOA.ASPX

KEITH E. HOTTLE, 

CLERK OF THE 

COURT

TELEPHONE

(210) 335-2635

FACSIMILE NO.

(210) 335-2762

December 27, 2017

John R. Holderman

6202 Madeline

San Antonio, TX 78229

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Vicki Ann Gil

4100 Bunker Hill

San Antonio, TX 78230

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 04-17-00701-CV

Trial Court Case Number: 2013-CI-20199

Style: Vicki A. Gil

v.

John R Holderman

Enclosed please find the order which the Honorable Court of Appeals has 

issued in reference to the above styled and numbered cause.

If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Very truly yours,

KEITH E. HOTTLE, 

Clerk of Court

_____________________________

Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53219

cc: Dinah L. Gaines (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Donna Kay McKinney (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 27, 2017

No. 04-17-00701-CV

Vicki A. GIL,

Appellant

v.

John R HOLDERMAN,

Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-20199

The Honorable Renée Yanta, Judge Presiding

ORDER

After appellant filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs, we 

abated this appeal, remanded the case to the trial court to resolve the court reporter’s contest, and 

requested findings of fact and conclusions of law from the trial court. The findings of fact and 

conclusions of law have been filed. 

The trial court found appellant is able to afford the cost of the clerk’s record, but unable 

to afford the cost of the appellate filing fees. Appellant has not challenged the trial court’s ruling, 

and the clerk’s record has been paid for and filed in this court. We therefore order appellant 

Vicki A. Gil to file the appellant’s brief by January 26, 2018.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 27th day of December, 2017.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                                                    ------------



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Charles W. Fischer, President and Chief Executive Officer of Nexen Inc., a
Canadian Corporation (the "Company"), 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 on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
     ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
     on the date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m or 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.


Date: May 12, 2003                                /s/ Charles W. Fischer
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Charles W. Fischer
                                                  President and Chief Executive
                                                  Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Nexen Inc. and shall be retained by Nexen Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
2109.7001 Minimum standards for FEGLI Program contractors. ( a ) The Contractor must meet the requirements of chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code; part 870 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations; chapter 1 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations; and the standards in this subpart. The Contractor must continue to meet these and the following statutory and regulatory requirements while under contract with OPM. Failure to meet these requirements and standards is cause for OPM's termination of the contract in accordance with part 2149 of this chapter.
( b ) The contractor must actually be engaged in the life insurance business and must be licensed to transact life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance under the laws of all the States and the District of Columbia at the time of application.
( c ) The contractor must not be a Federal, State, local or territorial government entity.
( d ) The contractor must not be debarred, suspended or ineligible to participate in Government contracting or subcontracting for any reason.
( e ) The contractor must keep statistical and financial records regarding the FEGLI Program separate from that of all its other lines of business.
( f ) The Contractor agrees to enter into annual premium rate redeterminations with OPM.
( g ) The Contractor must furnish such reasonable reports as OPM determines are necessary to administer the FEGLI Program. The cost of preparation of such reports will be considered an allowable expense within the administrative expense ceiling defined in section 2152.231-70 of this chapter.
( h ) The contractor must establish and maintain a system of internal control that provides reasonable assurance that: ( 1 ) The payment of claims and other expenses is in compliance with legal, regulatory, and contractual guidelines;
( 2 ) Funds, property, and other FEGLI Program assets are safeguarded against waste, loss, unauthorized use, or misappropriation;
( 3 ) Revenues and expenditures applicable to FEGLI Program operations are properly recorded and accounted for to permit the preparation of reliable financial reporting and to maintain accountability over assets; and,
( 4 ) Data are accurately and fairly disclosed in all reports required by OPM.
( i ) The contractor must permit representatives of OPM and of the General Accounting Office to audit and examine records and accounts pertaining to the FEGLI Program at such reasonable times and places as may be designated by OPM or the General Accounting Office.
[58 FR 40374, July 28, 1993, as amended at 70 FR 41150, July 18, 2005]
p.1 

OAR Box 1208 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

60) ll-E-14 

Docket Number: 

A-89-10 

Printed 51912008 9:17:40 AM Sheet 60 of 139 
T-W 

P.2 

c-Tl 

(_ @ BS _P> ® 18 0b V 0 ® 

ar*W-_ i 

II-E-1 4 

CONTACT REPORT 

No. P C/fO Date i v

~

/

'"/ ' ^ i ' ' ' Originator 

CONTACT BY: TELEPHONE V MEETING • Other 

_ • / ^ 

NAME, TITLE & ORGANIZATION 

Per /tsioccxA^ 

ADDRESS & TELEPHONE NUMBER 

PURPOSE OR SUBJECT (Give project number if appropriate) 

f __/tc 6_/l o_o- _v^> 

SUMMARY 

"IT ^h-^ - / ^ <j -fjc, ^u 7 i)jW 0 7*1 Mike, "j Cuj/; /4 c 

,Y\vsi • _.^-<v\ <__-«._ co.j'Ci' . ' ° - '-.'/ - : /••i . 

/*/• /"A r. r ,A s ^.^.^ 5 ;1 -V..V Jru^o L "f^*- 0_JLi_i_? vl/x0(. /-J_IJL\ hr 

' t i 

7-c\^ -«r_j.s i_/u/<_ h<. J.-X /nf -u^tx s/^t'k<. -/r*«J_ or 

fir ^I_V-N f-Jj_ ^ 7~/w. ^ AA /^H. TM__(J cX Co J /.. AJ /^'H./*,.- c_. 

rt^v- , r^ _Nj«.ifv/x I'^AIJ^I; ^ '_,-•<- v /• 7 ^ /c.w-i ._, 

yaa, R,- I 

" """ ' " - ^ 

."•A 

-VJ*-., T^ " ~ ' vi ^ i ov - v o_. . ,'<;•_. _,..'<. 

««»

thr'«y tor ,^x ^U.h ;, S^.MI s ,,^ s A r .... 

c

^ >

 a^ HU a^ 4X7^/:],,,^, ^ <,- v^fc't L<\h} 

I

 L ] 

j ACTION to 

r--

3 

Distribution:
25.001 General. ( a ) 41 U.S.C. chapter 83, Buy American— ( 1 ) Restricts the purchase of supplies, that are not domestic end products, for use within the United States. A foreign end product may be purchased if the contracting officer determines that the price of the lowest domestic offer is unreasonable or if another exception applies (see Subpart 25.1); and
( 2 ) Requires, with some exceptions, the use of only domestic construction materials in contracts for construction in the United States (see Subpart 25.2).
( b ) The restrictions in the Buy American statute are not applicable in acquisitions subject to certain trade agreements (see Subpart 25.4). In these acquisitions, end products and construction materials from certain countries receive nondiscriminatory treatment in evaluation with domestic offers. Generally, the dollar value of the acquisition determines which of the trade agreements applies. Exceptions to the applicability of the trade agreements are described in Subpart 25.4.
( c ) The test to determine the country of origin for an end product under the Buy American statute (see the various country “end product” definitions in 25.003) is different from the test to determine the country of origin for an end product under the trade agreements, or the criteria for the representation on end products manufactured outside the United States (see 52.225-18). ( 1 ) The Buy American statute uses a two-part test to define a “domestic end product” or “domestic construction material” (manufactured in the United States and a domestic content test). The domestic content test has been waived for acquisition of commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items, except a product that consists wholly or predominantly of iron or steel or a combination of both (excluding COTS fasteners) (see 25.101(a) and 25.201(b)).
( 2 ) Under the trade agreements, the test to determine country of origin is “substantial transformation” (*i.e.*, transforming an article into a new and different article of commerce, with a name, character, or use distinct from the original article).
( 3 ) For the representation at 52.225-18, the only criterion is whether the place of manufacture of an end product is in the United States or outside the United States, without regard to the origin of the components.
( 4 ) When using funds appropriated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5), the definition of “domestic manufactured construction material” requires manufacture in the United States but does not include a requirement with regard to the origin of the components. If the construction material consists wholly or predominantly of iron or steel, the iron or steel must be produced in the United States.
[64 FR 72419, Dec. 27, 1999, as amended at 67 FR 21535, Apr. 30, 2002; 71 FR 20306, Apr. 19, 2006; 71 FR 57377, Sept. 28, 2006; 74 FR 14626, Mar. 31, 2009; 75 FR 38691, July 2, 2010; 75 FR 53165, Aug. 30, 2010; 78 FR 37694, June 21, 2013; 79 FR 24208, Apr. 29, 2014; 86 FR 6186, Jan. 19, 2021]
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 Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 of Center Bancorp, Inc. (the “Corporation”) for the year ended December 31, 2013 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Francis R. Patryn, Vice President, Treasurer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



1. The Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2. The information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Corporation as of the dates
presented and the consolidated results of operations of the Corporation for the periods presented.



|April 14, 2014 | /s/ Francis R. Patryn                                 | 
|-------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- | 
|               | Francis R. Patryn                                     | 
|               | Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer | 

-14-
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/PublicationsAppendix Figure 1. General topography of the area at RKm 61.6 (Tenasillahe Island), Columbia River, selected for observation during the juvenile salmonid stranding survey, 1992 and 1993.
#### 203.806 Processing suspected violations.

Report suspected violations to the address at PGI 203.806(a).

[77 FR 19128, Mar. 30, 2012, as amended at 86 FR 59870, Oct. 29, 2021]
Exhibit 32.1


                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Simon K Gill , Chief Executive Officer of Chaparral Resources, Inc. (the
"company"), 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:

1.   The company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
     March 31, 2005 ("Quarterly Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

and

2.   All of the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents,
     in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
     of the company.



Date: May 11, 2005



/s/  Simon K. Gill
-----------------------------
Simon K. Gill
Chief Executive Officer
#### Ethel Merker, Individually and as Guardian ad Litem for Leona R. Merker and Others, Infants, et al., Appellants, v. Aaron Merker, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Judgment dismissing complaint after trial unanimously affirmed, on the law and on the facts, with costs to defendant-respondent. Plaintiffs, on the preponderance of the evidence, failed to establish any agreement or understanding, express or implied, by defendant Aaron Merker with the deceased to hold or use the savings bonds or life insurance for use of or delivery to plaintiffs and defendant Arthur Merker. Consequently, on this basis there was no warrant for imposing a constructive trust *(Farano*v. *Stephanelli,*7 A D 2d 420, 423-425; Restatement, Trusts 2d, § 44). Similarly, on the preponderance, as well as the sufficiency, of the evidence plaintiffs failed to establish that any transfers of property were made in a fiduciary or confidential relationship, under circumstances, sufficient to require defendant Aaron Merker to establish the voluntary and bona fide character of the transfers, for failure of which another kind of constructive trust might be imposed (3 Pomeroy, Equity Juris. [5th ed.], § 943 *et seq.;*Restatement, Contracts, § 497 and the cases cited in the N. Y. Annotations). But even if the evidence had sufficed to establish such burden it was met by defendant Aaron Merker on the preponderance of the evidence. In consequence, neither in law nor in justice should the judgment of the trial court be disturbed. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Eager, JJ. [26 Misc 2d 362.]
#### 16.405 Cost-reimbursement incentive contracts.

See 16.301 for requirements applicable to all cost-reimbursement contracts, for use in conjunction with the following subsections.

[48 FR 42219, Sept. 19, 1983. Redesignated at 62 FR 12696, Mar. 17, 1997]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6322

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CEDRIC JAMAL GRISSETT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(4:06-cr-00583-TLW-4)

Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cedric Jamal Grissett, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker 

Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South 

Carolina; Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cedric Jamal Grissett appeals the district court’s 

order denying relief on his motion for reduction of sentence 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. 

Grissett, No. 4:06-cr-00583-TLW-4 (D.S.C. Feb. 9, 2012). 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.

AFFIRMED
Dear Chief State School Officer:

On January 8, President Bush made an unprecedented commitment to America's            future by signing the No Child Left Behind Act, which takes historic            steps to bring comprehensive change to our system of education. Over            the next two days, I hosted meetings with many Chief State School Officers            from across the country to share ideas and strengthen relationships.            I believe your colleagues who attended the meetings went home with the            same vision for partnership and sense of energetic optimism the President            and I hold.

As we work together to bring positive and meaningful change to our            schools, we must simultaneously recognize and adapt to the changes thrust            upon us by the events of September 11, 2001. My office has worked diligently            to offer support and guidance to assist schools and parents in coping            with the new and extraordinary challenges we all face. We have also            learned critical information that will help us ensure our schools are            secure and safe learning environments. In addition, the U.S. Department            of Education is planning several activities and initiatives to prepare            our schools further for potential threats affecting our students, educators,            and their families.

The enclosed document offers detailed information to bring you up to            date on the specific actions taken by the Department of Education to            address the needs of those directly and indirectly affected by September            11. It also provides several important lessons learned with respect            to threat assessment and crisis management in our schools, as well as            actions educators and communities can take to implement effective policies            to protect our children from both internal and external threats. I encourage            you to share this information with members of your staff working on            safety and crisis management issues.

Whether we are working to raise expectations for academic achievement            or seeking to increase safety within our schools, I am committed to            helping you provide an optimistic and hopeful future for every American            child.

Sincerely,

/s/

Rod Paige

Enclosure

|Last Modified: 09/15/2004
|-------------------------
#### 1427.304 Procedures.
#### 2433.106 Solicitation provision.

The Contracting Officer shall insert the provision at 2452.233-70, Review of Contracting Officer Protest Decisions, in all solicitations for contracts expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

[64 FR 46097, Aug. 23, 1999]
#### 237.102-73 Prohibition on contracts for services of senior mentors.

DoD is prohibited from entering into contracts for the services of senior mentors. *See* PGI 237.102-73 for references to DoD policy and implementation guidance.

[75 FR 71564, Nov. 24, 2010]
227.7203-17 Overseas contracts with foreign sources. ( a ) The clause at 252.227-7032, Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software (Foreign), may be used in contracts with foreign contractors to be performed overseas, except Canadian purchases (see paragraph (c) of this subsection) in lieu of the clause at 252.227-7014, Rights in Other Than Commercial Computer Software and Other Than Commercial Computer Software Documentation, when the Government requires the unrestricted right to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose all computer software or computer software documentation to be delivered under the contract. Do not use the clause in contracts for special works.
( b ) When the Government does not require unlimited rights, the clause at 252.227-7032 may be modified to accommodate the needs of a specific overseas procurement situation. The Government should obtain rights to the computer software or computer software documentation that are not less than the rights the Government would have obtained under the software rights clause(s) prescribed in this part for a comparable procurement performed within the United States or its outlying areas.
( c ) Contracts for Canadian purchases shall include the appropriate software rights clause prescribed in this part for a comparable procurement performed within the United States or its outlying areas.
[56 FR 36389, July 31, 1991, as amended at 70 FR 35545, June 21, 2005; 88 FR 6587, Jan. 31, 2023]
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00274-CR

Allen F. Calton

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 213th District Court

of Tarrant County (0843168D)

January 7, 2016

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

SORL Auto Parts, Inc.

No. 1169 Yumeng Road

Ruian Economic Development Zone

Ruian City, Zhejiang Province

People’s Republic of China

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the registration statement on Form S-8 dated October 19, 2005, ofour report dated April 1, 2004 relating to the audit of the financial statementsof Ruili Group Corporation China (now known as SORL Auto Parts, Inc.) for theyear ended December 31, 2003, included in the 2005 Amended Annual Report (Form10-K amendment #1), as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission.

| /s/  Clancy and Co., P.L.L.C. |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|
|                                    |   |
| Scottsdale, AZ                     |   |
|                               |   |
| June 19, 2006                      |   |

----
#### (A) In the Matter of Isadore Dobosen, Petitioner, v. George P. Monaghan, as Commissioner, et al., Respondents. (B) John Fritzen, Appellant, v. County of Onondaga, Respondent. (C) The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Randolph Covington, Appellant. (D) The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony Smiech and Harold Bale, Appellants. (E.) Edward Bardell, Appellant, v. Marian Allen, Respondent.

[In each action] Motion granted and appeal dismissed.