alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sarah Lipton, Respondent, v. Daniel Shapiro, Appellant.

Order entered June 8, 1966, herein appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law without costs or disbursements to either party, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied. Triable issues exist which preclude the granting of summary judgment. Whether necessaries were in fact supplied, their fair and reasonable value, and additionally, whether necessaries were supplied or moneys advanced with a then existing expectation of payment, are all fact issues (16 N. Y. Jur., Domestic Relations, §§ 628, 629, 633, 635 *et seq.; Wanamaker*v. *Weaver,*176 N. Y. 75; *Swanton*v. *Curley,*273 N. Y. 325; *Silkworth*v. *Silkworth,*255 App. Div. 226; *Grishaver*v. *Grishaver,*225 N. Y. S. 2d 924). Liability of defendant for legal services rendered following upon an- award of counsel fees in the matrimonial proceeding also poses questions of fact and law (see Domestic Relations Law, §§ 237, 236, 240; 16 N. Y. Jur., Domestic Relations, § 672; *Levine*v. *Levine,*48 Misc 2d 15, affd. 50 Misc 2d 39). Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Steuer, Tilzer and Rabin, JJ.
Description of Amendment to Plan



 EXHIBIT 10o(i) 
  
 Description of Amendment to Verizon Communications Inc. Income Deferral Plan 
  
 In order to comply with Section 885 of the Act and Section 409A of the Code,
the Income Deferral Plan (the IDP) was amended on December 1, 2004 to freeze the accrual of benefits under the plan as of the close of business on December 31, 2004. Participants in the IDP will not accrue any additional benefits other than
market-based investment earnings or losses on their individual accounts. Participants will retain the ability to invest their frozen accounts in the investment options available under the plan. However, they will not be able to defer any new
compensation under the terms of the plan (unless otherwise permitted by U.S. Treasury Department guidance or regulations). Participants in the IDP will no longer receive matching contribution credits or retirement credits under the plan. Benefits
that are not vested as of December 31, 2004 will be transferred to the newly adopted Verizon Executive Deferral Plan, as of January 1, 2005.
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Tex as at Fort Wo rth

___________________________ No. 02

- 22

- 00402

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 325th District Court Tarrant Coun ty, Texas Tr ial Court No. 325

- 710726

- 21 Before Birdwell, Kerr, and Bassel , JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum O pinion 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### A.G., A 

### C HILD2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant B.H. ( Mother ) appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child A.G. 1 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161. 001(b) (1) (D), (E) , (O), (b)(2). Mother ’ s appoin ted appellate counsel has filed a brief asserting that this appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744

– 45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967);

se e also In re K.M. , 98 S.W.3d 774, 776

– 77 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2003 , order ) ( holding that Ander s procedures apply in parental

- rights termination cases) , disp. on merits , No. 2

- 01

- 349

- CV, 2003 WL 2006583, at *1

– 3 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth May 1, 2003, no p et. ) (per curiam) (mem. o p.) . The brief meets the Anders requirements b y presenting a professional evaluation of the record and dem onstrating wh y th ere are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appe al. We provided Mother the opportunity to obtain a copy o f t he appellate rec ord and to file a pro se response, but she did not do

so. The Department has agreed that Moth er has no meritorious grounds for appeal and thus has d eclined to file a respons ive bri ef
. When an Anders brief is filed, we must independen tly examine t he appe llate record to determine if any arguable grounds for ap p eal e xist. In re C.J. , No. 02

- 18

- 00219

- CV, 2018 WL 4496240, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Sept. 20, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.); s ee also Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 91); Ma ys v. State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 922

– 23 (Tex. App.

— Fort Wort h 1995 , no pet.). We also

1 In a t erminatio n - of

- parental

- rights case, we use ali ase s or initials for the names of the children and their parents. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d) ; Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2)
.3 consider the Anders brief itself and any pro se response. In re K.M. , No. 02

- 18

- 00073

- CV, 2018 WL 328 8591, at *10 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth July 5, 2018, pet. denied) (mem . op.); see In re Sc hulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 408

– 09 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 2 008) (orig. proceeding). We have carefully reviewed counsel ’ s brief and the appellate record. Finding no reversible error , we agree with counsel that this appeal is without m erit. See Ble dsoe v. State , 178 S .W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); In r e D.D. , 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2009, pet. denied). Therefore, we affirm the trial court ’ s judgment terminating M other ’ s parental rights to A.G. 2 Per Curiam Delivere d: January 23, 2023

2 Mother ’ s counsel remains appointed in this app eal through proceed ings in the supreme co urt unless she is otherwise relieved of h er duties for good c ause in accordance with Family Code Section 107.016
. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016 ; In re P.M. , 520 S. W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016)
.
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2009 

AN ACT 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from enforcing 

the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the 

Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2009 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Keep the IRS Off Your 

3 Health Care Act of 2013’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

5 Congress finds the following: 

6 (1) On May 10, 2013, the Internal Revenue 

7 Service admitted that it singled out advocacy groups, 

8 based on ideology, seeking tax-exempt status. 

9 (2) This action raises pertinent questions about 

10 the agency’s ability to implement and oversee Public 

11 Law 111–148 and Public Law 111–152. 

12 (3) This action could be an indication of future 

13 Internal Revenue Service abuses in relation to Public 

14 Law 111–148 and Public Law 111–152 given that 

15 it is their responsibility to enforce a key provision, 

16 the individual mandate. 

17 (4) Americans accept the principle that pa18 tients, families, and doctors should be making med19 ical decisions, not the Federal Government. 

20 SEC. 3. PROHIBITING ENFORCEMENT OF PPACA AND 

21 HCERA. 

22 The Secretary of the Treasury, or any delegate of the 

23 Secretary, shall not implement or enforce any provisions 
3 

•HR 2009 EH

1 of or amendments made by Public Law 111–148 or 111– 

2 152. 

Passed the House of Representatives August 2, 

2013. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2009 

AN ACT 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from enReconciliation Act of 2010. Care Act and the Health Care and Education forcing the Patient Protection and Affordable
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:98cr38-02/LAC

HOWARD CHEWING

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on October 7, 2009 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION to be physically present for new sentencing hearing and Motion

for resentencing pursuant to 73 Fed.Reg. at 217-01 and Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S.

(207) and 18 U.S.C. § 3582. 

Filed by DEFENDANT on 9/16/2009 Doc.# 184

RESPONSES:

 None on Doc.# 

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Jerry Marbut

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Jerry Marbut

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 3 day of

rd

November, 2009, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) The defendant was never held accountable for cocaine base of any amount.

Therefore, he is not entitled to any sentence reduction pursuant to 18

U.S.C.§3582(c)(2).

s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 USC, SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

          In connection with the amended quarterly report of Northern Ethanol, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below,            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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Dated: May 19, 2008 | s/Richard Smith_______________________

Richard Smith, Chief Financial Officer |
|---------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### § 29.3111 Rule 8.

In determining the grade of a lot of tobacco, the lot as a whole shall be considered. Minor irregularities which do not affect over one percent of the tobacco shall be overlooked.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**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 InrobTech Ltd. (the "Company") on Form
      10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), I, Ben-Tsur
      Joseph, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities and 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:
                August 6, 2008/s/
                Ben-Tsur JosephBen-Tsur
                JosephChief
                Executive Officer andChief
                Financial Officer
#### § 28.502 Color Grade No. 2.

Color grade No. 2 shall be American Pima cotton which in color is within the range represented by a set of samples in the custody of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in a container marked “Original Official Cotton Standards of the United States, American Pima, Color Grade No. 2, effective July 1, 1986.”

[65 FR 36600, June 9, 2000]
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**AFFINITY GROUP HOLDING, INC.**

 

**STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

I, Michael A. Schneider, President and Chief Executive Officer ofAffinity Group Holding, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), herebycertify as follows:

 

1.                                       This statement is provided pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 in connection with the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 (the “Periodic Report”);

 

2.                                       The Periodic Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

3.                                       The information contained in the PeriodicReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company as of dates and for the periods indicatedtherein.

 

 
| Date: May 8, 2006 |                                  |
|-------------------|---------------------------------------|
|              |                                  |
|              |                                  |
|              | /s/ Michael A. Schneider              |   |
|              | Michael A. Schneider                  |
|              | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or suchother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thewritten statement as required by Section 906, has been provided to AffinityGroup Holding, Inc. and will be retained by Affinity Group Holding, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
Exhibit 32.1



Section 906 Certification



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), the undersigned officer of Centennial Bank Holdings, Inc. (the
Company) hereby certifies that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: September 26, 2005



/s/ John M. EggemeyerName:

John M. EggemeyerTitle:

Chief Executive Officer




The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
### age: 2 

### of 2 07/13/2015 PHONE H3362020663 08:03AM T0:12022671293 

### FROM: Howard B. Brandon

Telephone: (336)358-6300 (0) (336) 202-0663 (M)

July !3, 2015 Ms. Sharice Jefferson Hearing DocketClerk AGC-430 Wilber Wright Bllilding--Suite 2WJOOO 800 Independence Ave. SW Washington, DC 20591 

# H. Bruce Brandon Attorney atLaw 3439 South Aviation Drive

Burlington, NC 17215

**ErnaiJ:bb-rucebrandon~g}gma-itcom** Facsimile: (336) 284-7050

VIA U.S. MAlL AND FACSIMILE Re: FAA DocketNo. 20l3EA390075 Dear Ms. Jefferson, Please take notice ofmy appearance on behalfofClear Day Aviation, Inc. in the matter ofFAA DocketNo. 20J3EA390075. Clear Day Aviation, Inc. request ahearing inthis matterconcerning alleged violations ofover flying ofa 100hour 

### inspection. Thankyou. Sincerely,

H. Bruce Brandon Attorney for Clear Day Aviation, lnc. Cc: Zachary M. Berman, Esq. FAA Eastern Region Counsel 1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434

### age: 1 

### o£ 2 07/13/2015 PHONE #3362020663 08:03AM T0:12022671293 

### Recipient Information 

### To: Ms. Sharice Jefferson Company: FAA Docket Clerk Fax#: 2022671293 Sender Information 

### From: Howard B. Brandon Company: Attorney at Law Email address: hbrucebrandon@gmail.com (from 138.210.0.38) Phone #: 

### 3362020663 Sent on: Monday, July 13 2015 at 11 :01 AM EDT

Ms. Jefferson, 

### FROM: Howard B. Brandon



# ~~~ffi®.com sendafaxfur

### free

Please find Clear Day Inc. request for a hearing re FAA Docket No. 2013EA390075. Thank you. Bruce Brandon

This fax was sent using the faxZero.com Free fax service. FaxZero.com has a zero tolerance policy for abuse andjunk faxes. If this fax is spam or abusive, please e-mail support@faxzero.com or send a fax to 855-330-1238, or phone 707-400-6360. Specify fax #15002546. We will add your fax number to the block list.

7/7
In response, appellants argue that the order appealed from 

was the final judgment because it resolved respondents' cause of action for 

attorney fees and determined that they were the prevailing party entitled 

to such fees. We disagree. Because the order appealed from did not 

establish an amount of fees, but instead set a future hearing date to 

determine an appropriate amount of fees, the order is not appealable.' 

Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, and we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 2 

1C241)Wr. Parraguirre 

cc: Hon. Leon Aberasturi, District Judge 

Laurie A. Yott, Settlement Judge 

Leverty & Associates Law, Chtd. 

Oshinski & Forsberg, Ltd. 

Third District Court Clerk 

Supreme Court Law Librarian 

IWe note that appellants have filed an appeal from the district 

court's order awarding a specific amount of fees and costs, docketed in this 

court as Docket No. 68776. Appellants are free to raise issues regarding 

respondents' entitlement to fees in the context of that appeal. 

2Appellants' motion to consolidate this appeal with Docket No. 

68776 is denied as moot. The conditional sanction imposed against 

appellants' counsel is hereby vacated. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1547A
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23(b)

                            [Saw and Co. Letterhead]


                  REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS



TO: SETO TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD.
    [formerly known as SETO TECHNOLOGY DOT COM SDN. BHD.]



We have audited the balance sheet of SETO TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD. [formerly known
as SETO TECHNOLOGY DOT COM SDN. BHD.] incorporated in Malaysia and referred to
as the "Company" as of January 31, 2002 and 2001 and the related statements of
income, stockholders' equity and changes in financial position for each of the
two years ended January 31, 2002. These financial statements have been prepared
in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in Malaysia. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express as opinion on these financial statements based
on our audit.

We have conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards in Malaysia which are substantially the same as those followed in the
United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of
material misstatement. An audit also includes assessing the accounting
principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our
audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of SETO TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD.
[formerly known as SETO TECHNOLOGY DOT COM SDN. BHD.] as of January 31, 2002 and
2001 and the results of their operations and changes in their financial position
for each of the two years ended January 31, 2002 in conformity with generally
accepted accounting principles in Malaysia.





[Signature]

SAW & CO.
FIRM NUMBER: AF 0666
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS



MALAYSIA
March 25, 2002
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 6, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50848

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUIS GUEVARA-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CR-204-ALL

--------------------

Before REAVLEY, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Luis GuevaraGarcia raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate

criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance

is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2006-0330.

#### Froehlich v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health.

Franklin App. No. 05AP-129, 2005-Ohio-7026.

Resnick, Pfeifer and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.
#### § 29.1003 Class.

A major division of tobacco based on method of cure or principal usage.
§ 1753.76 General. ( a ) This subpart implements and explains the provisions of the Loan Documents containing the requirements and procedures to be followed by borrowers for minor construction of telecommunications facilities using RUS loan funds. Terms used in this subpart are defined in § 1753.2.
( b ) [Reserved]
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0572-0062) [55 FR 3573, Feb. 2, 1990. Redesignated at 55 FR 39397, Sept. 27, 1990, as amended at 64 FR 16611, Apr. 6, 1999]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON THE NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A

FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS

FOR RESIDENTIAL FURNACE FANS

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.

Washington, DC 20585

Room 8E

- 089

Friday, June 18, 2010



## Purpose

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is holding this informal public meeting as the first

step in the energy conservation standards rulemaking process for residential furnace fans

. This meeting is intended to familiarize int erested parties with the approach, methodologies,

and analytical tools that DOE anticipates using to develop test procedures and evaluate

energy conservation standards for residential furnace fans. As such, it is the starting point for

the rulemaking proce ss. The meeting will highlight issues for which DOE has requested

feedback from interested parties, mainly regarding the assumptions, methodology, and

analytical tools DOE plans to use to evaluate energy conservation standards and develop test

procedures.



## Agenda

9:00

- 9:05 am Welcome

U.S. Department of Energy

9:05

- 9:15 am Attendee Introductions and Agenda Review

Doug Brookman

9:15

- 9:20 am Introduction

John Cymbalski

9:20

- 9:50 am Brief Opening Remarks from Interested Parties

Doug Brookman

9:50

– 10:00 am Regulatory Authority and Rulemaking Authority

Mohammed Khan

10:00

– 10 : 45 am Scope of Coverage and Test Procedures

Sam Jasinski

10:45

- 11:00 am Break11:00

– 11 : 45 am Test Procedures Continued

Sam Jasinski

11:45

– 12:30 pm Market and Technology Assessment, Screening Analysis, and

Engineering Analysis

Sam Jasinski

12:30

- 1:30 pm Lunch (on your own)

1:30

– 2:00 pm Markups for Product Price Determination, Energy Use

Analysis, Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Alex Lekov

2:00

– 2:30 pm Shipments Analysis, National Impacts Analysis, LCC

Subgroup Analysis

Alex Lekov

2:30

- 3:00 pm Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Rob Carmichael

3:00

- 3:15 pm Utility Impacts, Employment Impacts, Environmental Impacts,

and Regulatory Impacts Analyses

Alex Lekov

2:45

– 3:15 pm Next Steps and Closing Remarks from Interested Parties

Mohammed Khan

3:15 pm Adjourn
#### § 29.17 Director.

Director or Acting Director, Tobacco Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.