alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0000855112
<NAME>                          Enex Oil & Gas Income Program IV-Series 4,L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   sep-30-1996
<CASH>                                         5913
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  12904
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               24879
<PP&E>                                         1162418
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1048360
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 138937
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          71791
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     67146
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   138937
<SALES>                                        86919
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               86919
<CGS>                                          19807
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  296608
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               276801
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (209689)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
#### § 1.153-1 Determination of marital status.

For the purpose of determining the right of an individual to claim an exemption for his spouse under section 151(b), the determination of whether such individual is married shall be made as of the close of his taxable year, unless his spouse dies during such year, in which case the determination shall be made as of the time of such death. An individual legally separated from his spouse under a decree of divorce or separate maintenance shall not be considered as married. The provisions of this section may be illustrated by the following examples:

# Example 1.

A, who files his returns on the basis of a calendar year, married B on December 31, 1956. B, who had never previously married, had no gross income for the calendar year 1956 nor was she the dependent of another taxpayer for such year. A may claim an exemption for B for 1956.

# Example 2.

C and his wife, D, were married in 1940. They remained married until July 1956 at which time D was granted a decree of divorce. C, who files his income tax returns on a calendar year basis, cannot claim an exemption for D on his 1956 return as C and D were not married on the last day of C's taxable year. Had D died instead of being divorced, C could have claimed an exemption for D for 1956 as their marital status would have been determined as of the date of D's death.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          19,694
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,036
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,406
<PP&E>                                           1,897
<DEPRECIATION>                                     226
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,503
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,287
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,212
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,505
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,816
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,506
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,720)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,720)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,720)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.2


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Gilat-To-Home Latin America (Netherlands Antilles) B.V.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-96630, 333-08826, 333-10092, 33312466 and 333-12988), Form
F-3 (No.333-12698), and Form F-4 (No. 333-71422 of our report dated February 8,
2002 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Gilat-To-Home
Latin America (Netherlands Antilles) N.V. which report appears in the Form 20-F
of Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd. (none of which aforementioned financial
statements are separately presented therein)


Amstelveen, the Netherlands


April 14, 2003

















KPMG Accountants N.V. KPMG Accountants N.V., registered
under number 33263683 with the Chamber of Commerce in
Amsterdam, is a member of KPMG International, a Swiss
association.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2058

STELLA ENGWARLI TEKU,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: May 16, 2017 Decided: June 14, 2017

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for 

Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, 

Assistant Director, S. Nicole Nardone, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Stella Engwarli Teku, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an 

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen. We 

have reviewed the administrative record and Teku’s claims, and conclude that the Board 

did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2016); 

Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009).*

 We further find Teku’s due 

process claim to be without merit. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the 

reasons stated by the Board. See In re Teku (B.I.A. Aug. 18, 2016). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

 * To the extent Teku seeks to challenge the Board’s decision declining to reopen 

her proceedings sua sponte, we lack jurisdiction to review that aspect of its decision. 

Mosere, 552 F.3d at 400-01.
Exhibit
      32.1




CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of ECO 2 Plastics, Inc. (f.k.a., Itec Environmental Group, Inc.), a Delaware corporation
      (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March **** 31,
      2007,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Rodney
      S.
      Rougelot, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant
      to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to their
      knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





/s/
      Rodney S. Rougelot


By:
      Rodney S. Rougelot


Its:
      Chief Executive Officer











May
      14,
      2007





[A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      ECO 2 Plastics, Inc. (f.k.a., Itec Environmental Group, Inc.) and will be retained
      by
      it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.]
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-09-302-CR

ALBERT ESTRADA	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant Albert Estrada entered his plea of guilty to the offense of possession of methamphetamine in an amount of 200 grams or more but less than 400 grams with intent to deliver.  The jury found him guilty and assessed his punishment at nineteen years’ confinement.  The trial court sentenced him accordingly.

	In his sole issue, Appellant argues that the trial court erred by overruling his objection to improper argument by the prosecutor.  Because we hold that the trial court did not err, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

	At the punishment phase of the trial, Appellant testified that he had eight regular clients who would buy between an ounce and three ounces of methamphetamine per day on the weekends.  The prosecutor asked if, in Appellant’s experience, he knew that the average user would not use that much methamphetamine in an entire week.  Appellant answered that he did.  The prosecutor then asked, “So you know that you’re selling to people that are ultimately going to go sell to other people?”  Appellant answered, “I figured as much, yes, sir.”  

	In jury argument, the prosecutor argued, 

		We talk about [Appellant], and he told you, “I only sold to about seven or eight people.”  Well, did they deal?  Maybe.  They could have.  He was selling by the ounce.  He was selling 28 grams.  He said that that was more than [a] normal, average person would consume on a daily basis.

Appellant objected that the prosecutor was arguing a fact outside the record.  The trial court overruled the objection.  Appellant now argues that the trial court’s ruling constitutes reversible error.  

	Appellant had been asked without objection whether he realized that he was, essentially, selling to dealers.  He answered that he was aware of that fact.  

	As the State points out, fair and reasonable inferences from the evidence are legitimate subjects for the prosecution’s final argument.2  Appellant testified that he was aware that he was selling to people who were likely drug dealers.  The prosecutor was justified in arguing this fact to the jury as a circumstance to consider in assessing punishment.  The trial court therefore did not err by overruling Appellant’s objection.  

	We overrule Appellant’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

								LEE ANN DAUPHINOT

								JUSTICE

PANEL:  DAUPHINOT, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  June 10, 2010
EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Fonix Corporation on Form
10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Thomas A. Murdock, Chief
Executive Officer of 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 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.


                                /s/ Thomas A. Murdock
                             ------------------------------------------
                             Thomas A. Murdock
                             Chief Executive Officer




<PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Fonix Corporation on Form
10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Roger D. Dudley, Chief
Financial Officer, of 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 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.


                                /s/ Roger D. Dudley
                             ------------------------------------------
                             Roger D. Dudley
                             Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 4.5-A
                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                           GULF POWER CAPITAL TRUST V


         THIS CERTIFICATE OF TRUST of Gulf Power Capital Trust V (the "Trust"),
dated April 7, 2003, is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned, as
trustee of the Trust, to form a statutory trust under the Delaware Statutory
Trust Act (12 Del. C. ss. 3801, et seq.).

         1. Name. The name of the statutory trust being formed hereby is Gulf
Power Capital Trust V.

         2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of
the Trust with a principal place of business in the State of Delaware are Chase
Manhattan Bank USA, National Association, 500 Stanton Christiana Road, Newark,
Delaware 19713.

         3. Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective as of
its filing.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the sole trustee of the
Trust, has executed this Certificate of Trust as of the date first above
written.


                                   CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA,
                                   NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
                                   as Trustee


                                   By:      /s/John J. Cashin
                                            Name:    John J. Cashin
                                            Title:   Vice President
##### 



ZIX CORPORATION
STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
    Definitions
 Acquiring Person
 Affiliate and Associate
 Change in Control
   1




---



##### 



Continuing Director .
 Disability
  2




---



##### 



Exchange Act
 Resignation.
 Retirement
 Term of Option
 Exercise of Option .
 Exercise
 Adjustment
 Method of Exercise
  3




---



##### 



Termination of Option
   4




---



##### 



No Rights as Shareholder .
 State and Federal Securities Regulation .
  5




---



##### 



Modification of Options .
 Withholding of Taxes .
 Continued Employment Not Presumed .
 Non-Competition Covenants .
 either either
   6




---



##### 



Option Issued Pursuant to Plan
  7




---



##### 



No Liability of Option .
 No Assignment .
 Governing Law .
 Entire Agreement .
 Notice .
 ZIX CORPORATIONDate: 4/27/07
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Barry W. WilsonBarry W. WilsonChief Financial Officer and Treasurer
  8




---



##### 



Zix Corporation (TX)2711 N. Haskell Avenue
    
    Signature PageSuite 2200
    
    Sign and return to the legal departmentDallas, Texas 75204United States
  Effective Date of Grant:
    
    December 18, 2006Name of Optionee:
    
    Woessner, RonNumber of Shares:
    
    80,000.00Exercise Price:
    
    $1.50Plan Name:
    
    2004 Stock Option PlanExpiration Date:
    
    December 17, 2016
 Vesting Schedule:
    
    Number of Shares:
    
    
    Vest Date:6,666.66
    
    
    March 18, 20076,666.66
    
    
    June 18, 20076,666.66
    
    
    September 18, 20076,666.66
    
    
    December 18, 20076,666.66
    
    
    March 18, 20086,666.66
    
    
    June 18, 20086,666.66
    
    
    September 18, 20086,666.66
    
    
    December 18, 20086,666.66
    
    
    March 18, 20096,666.66
    
    
    June 18, 20096,666.66
    
    
    September 18, 20096,666.66
    
    
    December 18, 2009
 /s/ Ronald A.Woessner
    
    
    
    Date:4/27/07Optionee Signature
 Equity Enterprise
    
    Page 1 of 1
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 18-1039

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,

v.
DAVID WRIGHT, Defendant, Appellant.

**ERRATA SHEET** The opinion of this Court, issued on August 28, 2019, is amended as follows: Starting on page 7, line 1, replace: However, such information can be so used only "with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person." Id. with: However, "[i]n the event" that the government's after-the-fact application to the FISC "is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance," such information can be so used only "with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person." Id. On page 44, line 20-21, replace "reduced the government's burden to prove" with "relieved the government of its burden to prove"
# C_2014351EN.01002501.xml

| 6.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/25

---

Action brought on 18 August 2014 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (Shape of a Mexican taco)

(Case T-618/14)

2014/C 351/32

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 June 2010 in Case R 2449/2013-2 on the grounds of illegality and failure to observe the applicable legislative provisions relating to the Community trade mark, give judgment in accordance with the form of order sought set out in this application to the effect that the three-dimensional mark applied for is sufficiently inherently distinctive, grant this application and order that the three-dimensional Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 48  051 be entered into the register of trade marks in Class 30 of the International Classification as it is consistent with the requirements of Community trade mark law; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 June 2010 in Case R 2449/2013-2 on the grounds of illegality and failure to observe the applicable legislative provisions relating to the Community trade mark, give judgment in accordance with the form of order sought set out in this application to the effect that the three-dimensional mark applied for is sufficiently inherently distinctive, grant this application and order that the three-dimensional Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 48  051 be entered into the register of trade marks in Class 30 of the International Classification as it is consistent with the requirements of Community trade mark law;

| — | once this action has been allowed and the aforementioned mark entered into the register, order the person opposing the claim to pay the costs of these proceedings and to order OHIM to repay the appeal fee. |
| --- | --- |

—

once this action has been allowed and the aforementioned mark entered into the register, order the person opposing the claim to pay the costs of these proceedings and to order OHIM to repay the appeal fee.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Three-dimensional mark in the shape of a Mexican taco for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark application No 11 748 051

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 105 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 105

To amend Senate Resolution 75, agreed to March 3, 1993 (103d Congress).

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               April 29 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

 Mr. Jeffords (for Mr. Dole) (for himself and Mr. Mitchell) submitted 
      the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To amend Senate Resolution 75, agreed to March 3, 1993 (103d Congress).

    Resolved, That section 4 of Senate Resolution 75, agreed to March 
3, 1993 (103d Congress), is amended by deleting ``$250,000'' and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``$300,000''.

                                 <all>
```
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

________________________________ 

Case No. 5D24-0173

LT Case No. 2011-CF-1453

________________________________ 

ERIC T. FRAZIER, 

Appellant, 

v.

STATE of FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

_______________________________ 

3.850 appeal from Circuit Court for Clay County. 

James E. Kallaher, Judge. 

Eric T. Frazier, Cross City, pro se. 

No Appearance for Appellee. 

March 5, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a). 

EDWARDS, C.J., JAY, and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur. 
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________